Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 01 January 03 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goshen Alimentos[edit]

Goshen Alimentos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable food company Mooonswimmer 22:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As per Mike Peel above. However if it is kept, I think it needs a neutrality tag at the top, because it does need some balancing information to stop it looking like an advertisement. That said, at the moment, the more vegan and vegetarian articles we can offer, the more balanced our across-the-board article subject matter will be. Storye book (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 21:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mon Dite Chai[edit]

Mon Dite Chai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Television series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE stories about the announcement of an upcoming series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: When this page was on the draft page, I presented everything correctly and added reliable source and moved this page to the main page. What are you discussing to delete this page again, MrsSnoozyTurtle? And if you check the page carefully, then you will see with your own eyes that the date and stories of the series are announced. User:Nilpriyo (talk) 1:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nomination. And looks like promo. Nilpriyo has also notices for a possible COI relating to Zee Bangla on its talk page. The Banner talk 14:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I tell you The Banner, I am not a member of Zee Bangla. Why is the topic of salary raised here? Is it possible to work on Wikipedia without salary? You are saying here that I am a member of Zee Bangla so to delete the page. He could have done the notice well when he was noticing me. I have created many other pages besides Zee Bangla. As always I have been writing wrong as wrong and right as right. Still doing it today. And I make what I know is right. I work on Wikipedia to share my knowledge, not for pay. I'm not here to punish anyone on Wikipedia. I present what I know best on Wikipedia as an in-depth source on the subject. What do I do on Wikipedia? Who are you to say what not to do? It's completely my personal matter. At least rest assured that I will never misinform Wikipedia. I did not talk about the discussion of this page. When the page was on the draft page, I improved the page and moved it to the main page.If I am not wrong, you want to delete the page politically without revising the page. If you do then I will tell you that Wikipedia does not support deleting pages developed for personal gain. Because it's not right🙂🙂User:Nilpriyo (talk) 1:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Note for the closer: all keep votes up to now are from the same editor. The Banner talk 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I agree that the coverage is largely announcing an upcoming/newly launched series. The article itself reads like a press release/promo. Geoff | Who, me? 20:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:ROOUTINE pre-release coverage, nothing with significant coverage on this Ravensfire (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 21:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saneliso Dlamini[edit]

Saneliso Dlamini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD from User:Jogurney states Article about footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Following searches, this would appear to be valid. User:Das osmnezz's comment of International capped player with ongogn career does not have any relevance to SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. The former clearly wants us to have an article that must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.

Best sources I can find are PM News and The News, both of which have the exact same text copied over. Even more importantly, both are textbook examples of trivial mentions and fit the example of this found at GNG perfectly. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Primordial Tradition[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Primordial Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are some serious issues with this article. It's hardly clear from the article what it is really about. The majority of the statements in the article lack references, and have been so for years. There is no way to verify those claims. In fact, Tradition (perennialism) and the Primordial Tradition are in a sense one and the same thing, developed by the same individuals belonging to the Traditionalist School (perennialism). Although a separate page on the Primordial Tradition may satisfy the requirements for notability, I don't believe we need one, not at least in its current state, given we already have two entries on Traditionalism—one on the school itself and the other on the term. Those articles are well sourced. The Primordial Tradition is well covered in the page on Tradition, with references to scholarly sources, which can be further enriched. As for the content of this article, I don't think there is anything worth keeping. The best option for now, in my opinion, is a redirect to Tradition (perennialism). Mosesheron (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The whole piece is based on original research. There are three references though, but none of them support the assertions made in the article. Allow me to analyze each of the references. As for ref 1 (Antoine Faivre and Karen-Claire Voss, 1995), the source reads: "Subsequently, the prisca theologia of the Middle Ages underwent a transformation and became known as the philosophia occulta and the philosophia perennis. These terms were not interchangeable, but were each used to designate a relatively autonomous nebula in the mental universe of the time, one which was detached from theology per se. The historical or mythical representatives of the philosophia perennis were thought to constitute links in a chain, and among themone finds names like Moses, Zoroaster, Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, the Sibyla, Pythagoras and Plato. At this point, give or take a few nuances, the philosophia perennis has become what today is usually called Tradition." (Page 50-51, cited pages in the article) It doesn't talk about the Primordial Tradition, but Tradition itself. There has been a clear confusion between those two terms. Moreover, there's no mention of the Primordial Tradition in the entire article as a "school of religious philosophy". The only place in the cited paper that briefly discusses the Primordial Tradition is on page 62. The paper goes on to say: "It reaches its zenith when proponents of traditionalism, known as "perennialists", begin to postulate and to teach the existence of a "primordial Tradition," overarching or underlying all other religious and esoteric traditions of humanity." Clearly, the paper discusses, albeit briefly, about the topic as an idea, attributing it to the Traditionalists, not as a school of thought. For ref 2 (Re Antoine Faivre and Karen-Claire Voss, 1995), it is sufficient to say that the cited page, and as a matter of fact, the entire paper, has nothing to say about the concept's reception by practitioners and the academic community. Ref 3 is the name of a book, with contributions from the members of the Traditionalists school. No page no is mentioned, and it is unclear what can be made out of that. The rest of the article is unreferenced, anyway. I have nothing to say about that. Thank you.Mosesheron (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No additional discussion since first relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a strange article that appears to have started life as a copyvio of something that no longer exists. I don’t know enough about the subject to judge whether there is genuinely an encyclopedic topic here or not, but if we have an article that fails verification we should not keep it. Waiting for someone to improve it clearly hasn’t worked so if there is a plausible topic here then I think TNT and a fresh start would be best. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to Mosesheron's excellent breakdown of the sourcing and overall content, this page seems worse off than the section at Tradition (perennialism). There doesn't seem to be anything salvageable here since it's all unverified and seems like WP:OR. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above and OMG, what a hot mess. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 21:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack of Your Summer Tour[edit]

Soundtrack of Your Summer Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per IP's request on the talk page: I'm nominating this co-headlining tour article because it failed WP:NTOUR and it is undersourced article for over two years, per the consensus at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows), which is ultimately deleted as a result. User:2600:1700:9BF3:220:B9E1:5B8:C232:4F52 UtherSRG (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN Series (Turkish TV channel)[edit]

BeIN Series (Turkish TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gazozlu (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There exists a rough consensus the subject isn't notable. Out of the two keep !votes, one is tentative and the other brings up a few sources without coming to terms with the argument that each instance of potential notability (politics, law, journalism) is likely too minimal to hit the threshold. In the context of a BLP, I give considerable weight to overall sourcing concerns, especially when editors proposing retention offer only a limited response in kind. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Awgu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ike Awgu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For a BLP, we simply require more of a claim to fame than is being presented here. There isn't a single item that is truly noteworthy here. Coming in 4th or 8th for anything isn't sufficient to demonstrate notability, even if you are included in a list of failed candidates. Wriring a few articles, or hosting a show on CPAC (which appears to be the Canadian equivelant of CSPAN) isn't really a free ticket to an article. There was a discussion in 2007, exactly 15 years ago that got a couple of keeps, but this was before WP:BLP and our standards for inclusion are considerably higher now, so I don't see that as a meaningful consensus in the current environment, thus putting up for a new consensus to form. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will vote weak keep, as there was significant coverage of him before ([1]) and following the 2003 election ([2]), and during his aborted 2006 council run ([3] - already cited in the article). I am also troubled that this whole AfD was spurred on by an anonymous user whose only edits have been been unconstructive edits to this page and on the talk page, including a bad faith claim that I am somehow associated with the subject at hand (possible projection?), just because I attended the same university. Anyway, I realize running as a candidate does not merit notability, but he did garner more coverage than your average run of the mill candidate, which spurred on a further career in journalism.-- Earl Andrew - talk 19:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me be perfectly clear, I was advised of the article, and after evaluating it for a few days, I sent it here. My decision was based on the merits, not pursusion. The nomination is thorough and presents the merits clearly. It is fine to disagree, but bringing and blaming on an IP editor borders on ad hominem, and at the very least is irrelevant to the discussion. What you call a single signification link (true) is also very local in nature (also true), and coverage wasn't widespread or in a national publication. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I take issue with calling the Ottawa Citizen just a "local" paper. It is the newspaper of record for the capital city of a G7 country. Would you consider the Washington Post to be just local? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on this article yet, but The Washington Post is considered a local paper when it covers local topics in the DMV region. In the 3 newspapers.com clips you linked above, all 3 are in the municipal section of the paper. Curbon7 (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and well put. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "local" and "national" media isn't a question of where the outlet happens to be based per se, because every media outlet is technically "local" to somewhere — it's a question of the relationship between where the outlet happens to be based and the context of what it's covering a topic for. For example, a high school athlete who doesn't pass our notability standards for athletes is not going to be extended a free pass of WP:GNG just because he has a bit of local coverage in the context of returning to the field in his first school-league basketball game since losing two fingers in an accident; a local restaurant owner is not going to be given a free pass of GNG just because the local newspaper has given his restaurant a review in its food section; every city councillor in every city on earth doesn't get an automatic notability freebie just because local media coverage exists; and on and so forth.
The more "local interest" and less "inherently notable" a topic is, the more they have to show reasons why they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater notability than most other people at similar levels. The closer the notability claim gets to run of the mill, in other words, the stronger the sourcing has to get to establish that this person should be treated as more than run of the mill. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I voted keep in the first discussion back in 2005, our notability and sourcing standards have changed over the past 18 years. Even in 2005, my vote wasn't on the basis of the non-winning candidacy (which has never been an article-clinching notability claim at all), and had more to do with the fact that he hosted programming on a national television channel -- but even that isn't an instant inclusion freebie anymore, in the absence of third-party validation of his significance (e.g. winning a Canadian Screen Award for that work, having coverage and analysis about the significance of that work, etc.) which simply isn't in evidence here.
    Every non-winning city council candidate in every city will always have some evidence of local coverage -- so if the existence of a handful of local-interest coverage of local politics were all it took to exempt a non-winning city council candidate from WP:NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would be meaningless. So no, having two or three pieces of human interest coverage about him in his local newspaper is not sufficient to make his unsuccessful candidacy more special than other people's unsuccesful candidacies, but notability as a journalist/television host has not been adequately established by 2020s standards here either. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He appears to be a columnist for the newspaper and is used as a legal expert on a few TV shows, nothing for GNG. Huff Post Canada shut down a while ago, so this article isn't even current. Running for mayor and getting 2% of the vote is far from GNG. I don't find any current sourcing, and what I find is not useful for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a "politician", clearly fails WP:NPOL (2% vote back in 2003 in local election; never an actual politician). As a "journalist", also significantly beneath the bar of notability: a few guest appearances on a TV show back in the mid-2000s brought on by the local buzz generated from his failed election run, nothing in the field since. Reality is: subject is not a journalist. He's a laywer. And these "journalistic accomplishments" also do not begin to approach notability in the field.
Furthermore, even in 2007, the second Afd discussion appears to focus on the vandalism at the time, without actually making any real arguments as to inclusion. This is essentially a one-time-feel-good-story article with a few local (now long archived) sources that has remained a stub article with no real chance to improve it. Finally, there is the (unproven) issue of vanity by proxy (the subject himself has previously edited the article, albeit to undo vandalism). 50.237.197.242 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He may be a failed mayoral candidate, but the coverage about him is more than significant. The in-depth 2010 Ottawa Citizen piece is certainly in-depth and counts towards GNG. But there's also another in-depth piece on him in the Citizen in 2003 - ProQuest 240694471 which was published after the election. More recently in 2014 he was extensively quoted on landlord right in the biggest national paper in the country. Nfitz (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two sources present nothing new i.e. the 2010 Ottawa Citizen piece is just source #2 out of 4 again on his page, and again only represents local coverage in a local paper, as does the 2003 piece, in the same local paper.
    Regarding the 2014 article, I'm not sure being quoted in one article as a lawyer now, really clinches GNG. It seems that we have some local news coverage of the subject in three different fields ie politics, journalism, & law, yet even combined hardly suffice for anything resembling GNG. 50.237.197.242 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prathibhavam[edit]

Prathibhavam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's been a couple weeks with no discussion so I took a look. Maybe there's more than can be found in Malayalam, but in English, I can't find much of anything. The Wiki article had failed verification violations and the very limited sourcing includes a blog and an image. It doesn't appear that anything about this is notable, and given the newspaper has been defunct, it's unlikely it'll become notable. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thakor Laxmanji Punjaji[edit]

Thakor Laxmanji Punjaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the infibox the sources show that this candidate was UNSUCCESSFUL in seeking election. Mccapra (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Gujarat. Mccapra (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source says "Wins 2022 Gujarat Assembly Elections From Kalol". Does that not mean they were successful in seeking election? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject was successfully elected; no shot at the nominator as this was very unclear at the time of the nomination. I've cleaned-up the article quite significantly. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination. Apologies for misunderstanding. Mccapra (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Images[edit]

Kashmir Images (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janathavani[edit]

Janathavani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MILL - no evidence it is a daily newspaper with beyond local impact. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janam Sakshi[edit]

Janam Sakshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a simple Google books search shows it has been cited many times over an extended period of years. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hachukni Kok[edit]

Hachukni Kok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdin[edit]

Ekdin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Other prominent newspapers are Bartaman (534,000), Sangbad Pratidin (313,000), Ajkal (181,000), Ekdin (124,000)..." ([4]). This is the literally the first hit on google books, so the nominator doesn't seem to have performed WP:BEFORE... --Soman (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinasudar[edit]

Dinasudar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Desher Katha[edit]

Daily Desher Katha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Desher Katha, Sambad, and Syandan are some of the leading Bengali dailies of Tripura." ([5]) --Soman (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujanratna Loknayak[edit]

Bahujanratna Loknayak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avadhnama[edit]

Avadhnama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Akhbar (India)[edit]

Al Akhbar (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajker Fariad[edit]

Ajker Fariad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find sources about the newspaper in internet. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable subjects have too many news articles from independent or third party news source and also it's circulation is very low from many notable newspapers so it can't be said that it is notable. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mukti Sangharsh[edit]

Mukti Sangharsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to MTV Hustle. Consensus not to retain below, but no clear favourite with regards to delete or redirect, so taking the ATD as the path of least resistance. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King (rapper)[edit]

King (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rapper that doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.Though there is some coverage of them, a lot of what I'm finding is based on appearing on MTV Hustle 2.0, which doesn't demonstrate notability based on point 2 of WP:REALITYSINGER. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Most articles hit on The Lion King and Chance The Rapper, nothing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that there is a risk here of relying on what we find through search-engine results in Britain or America or wherever English Wikipedia editors tend to be based, rather than looking at the sources in his home country of India. Search-engine results are weighted towards the country that you're in. I know that there is no current guidance on what is a reliable source of information for the Indian music industry, but most of the sources in the current Wikipedia article seem reasonable to me. Based on those sources in the current article, he seems to meet points 1, 2, 5 and 12 on WP:MUSICBIO. There seems enough for general notability (at least in India) as well. That said, the article is currently in a very strange format and needs a lot of editing to meet our usual quality standards. Epa101 (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MTV Hustle Looking through the current references I see nothing that pushes them over WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Spotify charts have absolutely no value in our criteria. The majority of the references are about his time on a reality show, which is mentioned in the nomination. Unless they can prove they meet our inclusion criteria on their own should be redirected to the show's article. The other references are press releases, announcements and something that happened at one of his shows. I'm not currently seeing enough to warrant a stand alone article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. New keep !vote was determined to be a sock after relist. Deleting without that the consensus is clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dui Bhai[edit]

Dui Bhai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not nearly enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 13:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - similar 20+ articles have passed the deletion process previously. Needs more authentic sources, but songs lists are allowed in wikipedia. Abbasulu (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abbasulu: this AfD is not about a song list. Perhaps you would like to revise your comment? --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to above, similar 20+ articles have passed the deletion process previously is vague and a bit similar to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You've also copied and pasted Needs more authentic sources, but songs lists are allowed in wikipedia to Kal Tumi Aleya as well- perhaps you can inspect the article first before commenting? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The current refs are non-SIGCOV databases, this appears to be mentioned in numerous refs, e.g., 1, 2, 3 (the encyclopedia looks promising but in this case it just routinely lists this film as the filmography of several directors), but these are non-SIGCOV as well. However, do ping me if more refs are found. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added another reference which is a news article that directly mentions this film. I hope I adds notability Abbasulu (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a purely trivial mention that appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems to be a fairly sourced article and is relevant to the wiki film project.Suedeakin01 (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Disregarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, there is a (weak) consensus to delete below. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Asha Bhosle[edit]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Referencing is atrocious. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - similar 20+ articles have passed the deletion process previously. Needs more authentic sources, but songs lists are allowed in wikipedia. Abbasulu (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • not contesting, or supporting anything, but would you kindly elaborate why the article fails WP:NLIST, Timtrent? It should have been in the original nomination. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you may feel it might pass the NLIST criterion, GNG is most assuredly failed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Disregarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, there is a (weak) consensus to delete below. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telugu songs recorded by P. Susheela[edit]

List of Telugu songs recorded by P. Susheela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Referencing is atrocious. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - similar 20+ articles have passed the deletion process previously. Needs more authentic sources, but songs lists are allowed in wikipedia. Abbasulu (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Sadhana Sargam[edit]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Sadhana Sargam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Referencing is atrocious. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - similar 20+ articles have passed the deletion process previously. Needs more authentic sources, but songs lists are allowed in wikipedia. Abbasulu (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Disregarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, there is a (weak) consensus to delete below. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Udit Narayan[edit]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Udit Narayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Referencing is atrocious. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - similar 20+ articles have passed the deletion process previously. Needs more authentic sources, but songs lists are allowed in wikipedia. Abbasulu (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Don't need list for every single language songs he sang. Azuredivay (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fisher (civil servant)[edit]

Mark Fisher (civil servant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable civil servant - Mooonswimmer 14:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe he passes wp:anybio "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor," He was awarded a CBE in 2010, source The Times Date: Thursday, Dec. 31, 2009 Issue: 69832 Page: 57 "Christopher Mark Fisher director, jobseekers and skills, Employment Group, Department for Work and Pensions" Piecesofuk (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not aware that OBE is sufficient for notability. The OBE site itself says There are more than 100,000 living members of the Order throughout the world. The Grenfell inquiry was a large undertaking, but within the normal scope of civil service. I think him mentioned in articles about the inquiry, but not significantly about him. Lamona (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the overall number of the members of the order, the vast majority of whom are the lower-ranked MBEs or OBEs. The subject here is a CBE, not an OBE. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the list for 2010 that includes him: Honours list 2010. There are over 100 people in the CBE category. While I think the CBE can be in support of notability, I do not think it is sufficient for notability. We still need at least two strong, in depth, reliable sources that are primarily about him. Lamona (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete For someone so linked with the Grenfell inquiry I would expect it to be much easier to find good sources, but I've come up lacking.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Clearly notable for his CBE, which we have generally considered to count per WP:ANYBIO. A couple of hundred people a year in a country of 66 million is not many! Obviously considered to be notable by people who understand what real notability is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the CBE counts towards WP:ANYBIO due to the award being an elevated award in the Order. Equine-man (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete as per User:ActivelyDisinterested - I don't accept that a CBE unsupported by sources, as in this instance, does the trick by itself. Where are the sources? Ingratis (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's entirely supported by sources. The first one listed, in fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • But in case you (bizarrely) don't accept that his official government biography is a reliable source, I've added a link to the 2010 New Year Honours where it was gazetted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torsten Bell[edit]

Torsten Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable civil servant - Mooonswimmer 14:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep This article includes many citations from news coverage in national papers. Easily passes WP:GNG. QuintinK (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Director of a notable think tank, together with the other sources already present prove notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability proved beyond all reasonable doubt, must be kept. LvivForev (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above contributors. His role at Resolution Foundation is what merits the entry (alongside his career in the civil service). I'm surprised that the article is, however, as short as it is; there are a lot of sources out there about him with a lot more information, even in the first page of results of a Google search. _MB190417_ (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sometimes, editors can disagree reasonably, but looking at the article now, it's an easy keep. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Charitra[edit]

Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Charitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), this film does not have significant coverage. A search in English or Telugu (శ్రీ వాసవి కన్యకాపరమేశ్వరి చరిత్ర) online brings up the Goddess of the same name, but nothing of the film such as reviews from critics or anything else. DareshMohan (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Doldersum[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Todd Doldersum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find evidence that he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Minor coverage, mainly in unreliable sources or promotional material. Last AfD closed as no consensus, very little participation. Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Still nothing found, he's done a few Canadian dubs for cartoons, but nothing we can use for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NACTOR is not automatically passed just because acting roles have been had — every actor has had acting roles by definition, because that's literally the job description, so if just having roles guaranteed automatic inclusion in Wikipedia regardless of sourceability, then every actor would automatically get that pass and NACTOR itself would be meaningless. Rather, the notability test for an actor hinges on the amount of reliable sourcing that can or cannot be provided to demonstrate that his acting roles have made him a subject of third-party attention — but the references here are a press release from the studio that made a show he was in (a primary source that is not support for notability at all) and a newspaper article that just glancingly namechecks his existence in a photo caption while not saying even one word about him in the body text, and the only other thing I can find on a WP:BEFORE search is a human interest piece in the context of his wedding rather than the context of anything relevant to passing our notability criteria for actors or puppeteers. That's not sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agim Morina[edit]

Agim Morina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet Wikipedia's criterion of wp:notability as this person is not being quoted anywhere on the Internet quoted very rarely (in just one magazines) and in some case it's not even him, but and engineer with the same name. No third-party references can be found regarding him except these pages: the blog he writes for [6] and an IMDb page [7]. The sources being quoted in his wiki article are self-published (i assume this is the case since they are published in a simple blog). None of his works can be found in Google Scholar or Google search. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article's author is retired @Getoar TX FierakuiVërtet (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
update: ok, looking back some of his works can be found here [8], but they are not academic works and the publishing house is somewhat unknown. I deem he does not meet wikipedia's criteria on notability. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Soundcloud, various social media and a taxi diver in Switzerland, nothing found for this specific person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toebow[edit]

Toebow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized rticle about a band, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim in evidence here is that their music exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about it -- but the referencing here is entirely to primary sources (their own Bandcamp, concert calendar listings self-published by individual venues where they've performed) and blogs rather than real GNG-worthy media. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete links in the Brooklyn Vegan and for a performance, nothing we can use for GNG.
Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. I don't usually like draftifying unless someone has expressed an interest in working on said draft, but given the general clamor here there's little choice. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OnePlus 11[edit]

OnePlus 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. OnePlus 11 hasn’t been announced yet. Hajoon0102 💬 12:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hajoon0102 💬 12:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hajoon0102 💬 12:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The official account of OnePlus on the social media platform Weibo, has posted the following (translated to English): "OnePlus' new generation of flagship product, future performance leader OnePlus 11 will be released soon! OnePlus 11 will challenge many impossibilities in the industry, so stay tuned." Follow this link for the post: [9] The teaser was released in the keynote address during the ninth anniversary celebration of OnePlus in China on 17 December 2022. The same has been posted by the same account here: [10]. Since these posts are made from the official OnePlus account, this teaser is very much official and I would vote to NOT delete this article. AkshayAnandTalk! 15:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the official OnePlus website now has a dedicated page for the launch of OnePlus 11: [11]; where it confirms the launch date of the device to be 7 February 2023. AkshayAnandTalk! 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AkshayAnand, it's not a rule but it is polite to mention that you are the creator of this article. It helps others here to understand your stake in the AFD. Thanks, Lamona (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verge, CNet, and ZD Net have now all posted stories about the announcement this morning. Skynxnex (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify Announcements come from the lips of the manufacturer and are not reliable. The same applies to the many articles such an announcement spawns. Reviews are what is lacking. WP:TOOSOON means hold your horses on this effort in the form of a WP:DRAFT.
    Quisqualis (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What qualifies as an official announcement? Would that not make Wikipedia the mouthpiece of a manufacturer? If it's "reviews are what is lacking" do we not create pages for upcoming products until after their release? Even a cursory Google search finds many notable sources talking today about this upcoming phone, and not in a speculative rumor capacity. Criticalus (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
adding one such source for reference; https://www.engadget.com/oneplus-11-january-4-snapdragon-8-gen-2-130102183.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticalus (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify I agree with nom that this is WP:CRYSTAL. Journals and sites pick up these announcements with little or no independent analysis. It's their click bait and it quickly fades if the technology doesn't find a market. This should wait until the tech product has been around long enough to have serious reviews. Lamona (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might as well be vaporware at this point, beyond software announcements, there is nothing to use as a program, we can perhaps revisit in 6 months if it goes anywhere as a piece of software. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Agree does not yet warrant an article, but will almost certainly in the not so far future. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: the phone was officially teased, but I don't see it being notable until release. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 05:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I nominated this afd when this phone hasn’t been announced yet. But, this phone was announced yesterday.[12] How can I do? Hajoon0102 💬 01:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a product announcement that takes its info directly from what the company has provided. The article also says: "While the release date has already been confirmed, we still await the pricing." So still no independent reviews, just reiterating the company's announcement. Also, the product has not yet been released. Lamona (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress (software)[edit]

Cypress (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong keep: If it's got multiple books written about it specifically, it passes WP:GNG with flying colours almost by definition. This goes double for software, considering its intangible nature (particularly for modern, cloud-first software such as this). Modernponderer (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#5. ✗plicit 14:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zulqarnain Sikandar[edit]

Zulqarnain Sikandar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kanwal Aftab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLPs of two social media personalities who married each other last year, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for YouTubers or TikTokers. The primary notability claim in each article is the number of followers they have, which is not an inclusion criterion at all, and the articles otherwise consist entirely of biographical trivia -- and both articles are heavily reference bombed to a mixture of sources that aren't support for notability at all (primary sources, blogs, etc.) and sources that are "covering" them only in the context of the wedding itself rather than anything career-related.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough, nor is the sourcing strong enough, to earn them Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to verify that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Pakistan. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that their marriage has been covered in news sources And many news sources are available regarding their marriage. yes if he is a famous person then his marriage was shown in the news of his career has been covered in Pakistan's big TikTokers and big news website 123456Dawn News And she has also worked as a journalist and news reporting with UrduPoint 78UrdupointTichku (talk) 8:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Block evading WP:SOCK. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Zulqarnain Sikandar and Kanwal Aftab, notability is model actor, YouTuber and TikToker. Most of the refs are non reliable and just blogposts and some reliable sources have coverage other than his/her notability. Pages are full of references with the couple's wedding, new born baby, photoshoot and tour. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I searched further and found more reference sources about his career from some big news site of Pakistan This couple's is famous in Pakistan that even when his baby was born, he also got news coverage.

1. Bol News

2. Bol News

3. Daily Pakistan

4. Daily Pakistan

5. Samaa TV

6. 24 News HD

7. 24 News HD

8. Dawn News

9. The News International With that much coverage in reliable English and Urdu Sources Tichku (talk) 2:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Block evading WP:SOCK. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors For the NHS[edit]

Doctors For the NHS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable association, can't find much significant coverage. Mooonswimmer 16:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter of Sheena[edit]

Daughter of Sheena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted in fawiki for WP:N. Plus the creator and major editors are banned for SOCK. Very likely promotional. Ladsgroupoverleg 16:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Pharmaceutical[edit]

Quantum Pharmaceutical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unable to find much substantial coverage despite it being a publically traded company. Mooonswimmer 15:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This business appears to have been acquired by Target Healthcare during 2021: [15][16]. (The acquirer is distinct from Target Healthcare REIT, so that is not a ATD target.) Prior to that Quantum was acquired by Clinigen, another company with no article, in 2017 [17]. AllyD (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Weak keep I've stripped out most of the unreferenced details in the article, and added some new references. It still needs more work, but I believe it has enough for basic notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated to Keep given improvements to article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—pretty clearly passes WP:NOTE, and might squeak by WP:CORP. I've made revisions to the article from the previous sources, a new source I found and the two sources provided by AllyD in their comment; see this diff. I've not pulled in any documents arising from their having been a public company for about 8 years yet (from the UK authorities). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—recent edit "added Clinigen Group acquisition Reuters article and added fate field to infobox". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I assume that "soft keep" means "weak keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Known specials company producing special off-label medication. Equine-man (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

En el espejo del cielo[edit]

En el espejo del cielo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a short film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. The attempted notability claim here is a long, long list of awards from minor film festivals that aren't instant notability freebies in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- NFILM looks for awards from a narrow "elite" tier of internationally prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto and Sundance, not just any award from just any film festival that exists -- but the article is completely unsourced, and in fact appears to have been created at least partially to drive traffic to a streaming copy of the film on the self-published website of its own distributor.
As I don't read Spanish and can't access archived Mexican media from the 1990s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can find some proper sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudnine Hospitals[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cloudnine Hospitals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing other than funding news and PR Based launches, and announcement coverage. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Artemis Fowl characters. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Koboi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Opal Koboi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears well referenced, but it seems that all that is referenced is the plot summary. There is no reception, analysis, nothing to suggested the character is notable. BEFORE finds only plot summaries and some comments about the book Artemis Fowl and the Opal Deception of which she is the protagonist. Per WP:ATD, I can suggested at best to soft delete this by redirecting this to List of Artemis Fowl characters. And if anyone cares, I think pretty much all fictional elements in Template:Artemis Fowl have major issues with GNG and, well, guess what we will probably be seeing in Fiction delsort over the next few months... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectto one of the book articles, I'm not seeing much about the characters outside of discussions of the books. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Artemis Fowl Feetfeet 341 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the list of characters. There is a consensus that character lists can create combined notability in addition to the book itself. Archrogue (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. At least a couple of the !votes to delete are not based in policy; while I agree we're at the borderline of NPOL here, a substantive argument has been put forward that the subject meets GNG, and has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Baxter Jr.[edit]

James H. Baxter Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and have to demonstrate that they were already notable enough for Wikipedia articles for other reasons besides the candidacy alone -- but nothing else here is a notability claim at all, and the referencing consists of one primary source that isn't support for notability at all and one obituary in his own local media.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one piece about him in his own hometown community hyperlocal for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Goldsztajn is correct, but that is not an elected office. It's the bureaucratic head of a state agency, not the same as a state-wide office. So, this person doesn't meet WP:NPOL. QuintinK (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QuintinK WP:NPOL indicates those who have "held" office, it does not exclude appointees. The Secretary of Agriculture in Delaware is a cabinet level post. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn I believe you're mistaken. The term "statewide office" typically refers only to elected offices. From a legal glossary of Texas election law terms: "Statewide Office: An office of the federal or state government that is voted on statewide." So, an unelected state Secretary of Agriculture does not qualify for notability under WP:NPOL. They would need to qualify under WP:GNG. If they did, the bureaucratic head of every state agency in every state would as well - possibly even the members of minor state boards and commissions. I hope that makes sense. Sincerely, QuintinK (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @QuintinK - FWIW, the US is not the only federal system nor are we governed by Texas law. We're governed by *international* community consensus. We accept that appointed positions satisfy NPOL. Furthermore, we have precedent for accepting that appointed US state level cabinet positions satisty NPOL: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NB: WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn Thank you for sharing the WP:POLOUTCOMES precedent. I was unaware of it. I was not suggesting by any means that we were bound by Texas law. I was providing evidence of what I understand to be the commonly-held, encyclopedic definition of "statewide office" in American English. Here is similar definition from Nevada. It's important to note the difference here between a federal system and a Westminster system. In a Westminster system, provincial/state cabinet officials would all automatically have WP:NPOL by being members of a sub-federal legislature. In the US, a governor's cabinet are mainly civil servants, with some political appointees.
I am rather concerned about scope creep from the precedent, though. For example, the cabinet of Maryland has 20 current members that would meet WP:NPOL under this interpretation. Do all of those people really merit Wikipedia biographies? Along with all their predecessors over the centuries? It seems to me like they should have to meet the WP:GNG. QuintinK (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Regardless of the position of state cabinet officials with relation to NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES establishes that "Civil servants who assume a political office on an interim or caretaker basis are not considered notable just for having briefly held that office, even if holders of the office are normally considered notable". As a briefly serving acting secretary with a newspapers.com search returning few sources that provide WP:SIGCOV, I'm leaning towards the subject not being notable. Curbon7 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That clause doesn't apply. He wasn't a civil servant, he was a Republican politican - his appointment was neither interim nor caretaker. He was appointed to serve in the role, the Delware senate rejected the Governor's appointment. It's a completely different circumstance. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize from the previous discussion that his nomination to be Delaware Secretary of Agriculture had failed. In that case, he's not an appointed cabinet figure, but rather a failed nominee, and the earlier discussion about unelected state cabinet members is moot. He clearly fails WP:NPOL. Some of the article content could be merged with 1978 United States Senate election in Delaware, as recommended in WP:POLOUTCOMES for failed federal candidates. QuintinK (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck !vote due to the improvement, but am not confident on the article enough to !vote keep. Curbon7 (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Between 1975 and 1981 there's substantial SIGCOV availability of sourcing for Baxter, all easily found with simple searching at newspapers.com, including multiple front page news reports. Passes BASIC/GNG. Notwithstanding WP:NEXIST, I've nevertheless added these and expanded the article. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does seem to pass GNG, and possibly NPOL as well (although that seems less certain). Nice expansion work by Goldsztajn. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Thanks to Goldsztajn's new sources, the article now passes GNG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article expanded in length since the nomination, but the same notability issues mentioned in this AfD still remain such as a failed nomination vote for Delaware Secretary of Agriculture and a failed Senate campaign. There aren't new points for notability especially for WP:NPOL despite the additions. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saucysalsa30: NPOL does not need to be met; it is only an alternative to GNG. In what way does he not meet GNG? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG is the lowest, vaguest possible bar, and its vagueness is why so many other notability guidelines exist such as WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL in this case. Still, in the context of GNG, of the 19 sources, not including the duplicate, the two short obituraries which are practically identical, are only 2 (rather, 1) of the few sources that are secondary, assuming reliable, sources fully independent of the subject. The AAD website does nothing for notability. The press release from the Delaware Department of Agriculture is a government press release and affiliated with the subject considering he worked there. The WaPo article barely mentions Baxter except to say Dole told people to donate to Baxter. The rest of the sources are a couple small local newspapers, the area in which the subject was active, most of which have statements made by Baxter to the paper (not entirely secondary sourcing) and almost all are about his failed political campaigning, rivalry with Venema, or about Venema, which is exactly what's been discussed as problematic here. WP:CITEKILL stitching together news blurbs from a small local newspaper about each of the same precise two events to demonstrate nothing more than what was already discussed in this AfD doesn't help much with notability. A local newspaper's blurbs about or including one of their local politicians whose claim to notability was an acting position for a few months hardly meets notability criteria. The last source barely mentions a quote from Baxter. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: "GNG is the lowest, vaguest possible bar, and its vagueness is why so many other notability guidelines exist". Huh?? SNGs like NBIO pre-date GNG. If anything, GNG is a harder bar to reach, as there has to be significant coverage in reliable sources, whereas for NPOL the bar is simply holding a qualifying office. Curbon7 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point although I've seen the other way around more frequently argued, but both my original statement and reply to King were considering GNG too. "especially for WP:NPOL" was to emphasize NPOL, but was not ignoring GNG. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Local coverage is just as valid as national coverage, however. There is a reason that WP:AUD lives inside WP:CORP instead of a broader notability guideline; there is no consensus to ban local coverage from counting towards GNG more generally. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if one were to accept the perspective on local newsreporting presented above (for which there is no consensus), multiple reports added to the article (including five front-page pieces) are from *state*-wide news reports. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. UtherSRG (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdiansyah Cecep[edit]

Ferdiansyah Cecep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Primary editor refused draftification. UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - UtherSRG (talk)
  • Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 21:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kim Richards. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Blair Witch Mountain Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Blair Witch Mountain Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE.

Previous discussion in 2018 ended in no consensus where the only keep votes were based on WP:OTHERSTUFF existing on Wikipedia. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First engagement of neutral United States in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor[edit]

First engagement of neutral United States in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a poorly referenced WP:OR essay/list which fails WP:GNG as an article and WP:NLIST as a list. It doesn't cite a single source on the stated topic and is just a list of events, many unreferenced or referenced to general works or unreliable websites (like the claim about American first casualties, referenced to uboat.net. IF there is a notable topic here (and that's not shown with sources at all), it would need to be started from scratch (WP:TNT). The only WP:ATD I can think of is redirecting this mess to Military_history_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_II#Origins, where this topic is described in prose and with better sourcing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the whopper "They [scholars] disagree on which events led to formal entry of the United States into the conflict." Must be young pre-scholars because nobody with even half a brain would consider this claim anything but utterly ridiculous. No events before December 7 had any significant effect on the general public's strong preference for neutrality. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Speedy Delete as it’s nearly incomprehensible what this indiscriminate mess is supposed to be about, and also basically promoting false/fringe information (that the US was engaged in WW2 before Pearl Harbor) Dronebogus (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely false. The US Navy and German U-boats did engage in combat before the US officially entered the war. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but you get what I mean, it’s promoting a very, very dubious case based on bogus claims of “scholarly debate”. Also note that this was made by an account with less than 600 edits. Dronebogus (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list makes an arbitrary start date of 1932 for the "conflict" but the US military had several operations in the 1910s and 1920s. I see no point in keeping what's an OR synthesis. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Dream Focus 22:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a remotely plausible redirect. Dronebogus (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, an OR mess of individual incidents that add up to nothing supported by credible scholarship. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mainly WP:OR. Can't find a proper target where it could be redirected. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. All the sources in this article are to support the individual events listed (and at least a few of these sources look of dubious reliability). In order for this article to pass WP:GNG there must be multiple reliable sources which discuss the topic of when/whether the US entered WWII pre-Pearl Harbour; without these, there is no reason to collect these events into a single article. I'd also oppose a redirect since this is not a plausible search term. WJ94 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Utterly pointless. Intothatdarkness 15:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed that much of this is OR. Information here can be integrated into other pertinent articles if it isn't already there. A redirect would not be helpful. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Half the list pre-dates the start of the European theatre of war. Equine-man (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this our first article on the previously unrecognized World War 1.5? Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom etc --Devokewater 19:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. There's a way to write an article about the general topic of U.S. actions relating to WWII prior to Pearl Harbor (the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s and the Lend-Lease Act come to mind), but there is nothing useful in the text of the article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jodhpur#Transportation. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paota Bus Stand (Jodhpur)[edit]

Paota Bus Stand (Jodhpur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Immediate return to mainspace. I am not persuaded that this passes WP:GEOLAND. References are not of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing we can use, it's not a historic bus stop and isn't covered in anything we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannuseemu (talk • contribs) 12:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and GEOLAND wouldn't apply. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG by a mile. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Raikabag Palace Junction railway station, which is across the street from the bus stand. Jumpytoo Talk 04:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jodpur#Transportation. This is clearly an important part of the public transport infrastructure of the city but there are insufficient sources to demonstrate independent notability. I don't oppose merging to the railway station (this is much preferable to deletion), but think that the city article is the better target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jodhpur#Transportation. It's disappointing that a city the size of Jodhpur with a population of over a million appears not to have sufficient reliable sources to substantiate an article on its main bus station. The fact that it's mentioned in many guidebooks gives it importance, but the mentions tell us nothing about its construction, history, passenger numbers etc and little about routes, operators. Sadly, the article image is up for deletion as a possible copyvio. The Raikabag Palace Junction railway station is currently PRODed so safer to merge what little there is here to the Jodhpur page than lose everything. Rupples (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note: This article could technically qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G5 because it was created by a user in violation of a block, and the article has no substantial edits by other editors. However, because there have been suggestions to merge the content of the article elsewhere, I will let this AfD continue instead of deleting the article unilaterally. Mz7 (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not any different from other bus stops. Fails WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Speedy deletion as a hoax - or WP:SNOW deletion, if you prefer. JBW (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhineet Maini[edit]

Abhineet Maini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously rejected at AfC, now copied and pasted to mainspace by the same user. Article claims that he was elected to National Academy of Sciences, India, which would be an automatic pass of WP:NACADEMIC, but I can't find any reliable sources for this. I don't see how he meets any of the other criteria for inclusion. Article is cited entirely to his own work or to puff pieces on unreliable websites like Medium, where content creators can upload their own articles without anyone doing any fact checking. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://medium.com/@tysonneildegrasse1/the-maini-research-foundation-to-fight-for-womens-literacy-rights-in-afghanistan-580f1270fecf No No Deprecated per WP:MEDIUM Yes ✘ No
https://medium.com/@tysonneildegrasse1/16-year-old-scientist-from-harvard-makes-history-cb51163a865e No No Deprecated per WP:MEDIUM Yes ✘ No
https://kennethchloe.substack.com/p/16-year-old-scientist-from-harvard No Written by Kenneth Chloe, the same author as on Medium No Looks like any author can create an account here and submit content, just like Medium, Blogspot etc. Substack's main page says "Substack lets independent writers and podcasters publish directly to their audience and get paid through subscriptions." Yes ✘ No
https://vocal.media/education/it-s-official-the-real-world-iron-man-has-begun-his-own-research-foundation No The author - Michael S. James - appears to be an SPA promoting Maini on this site No Vocal is another website where anyone can write stories. Also, the article is referenced entirely to primary sources and other unreliable sources. Yes ✘ No
https://vocal.media/education/mind-blowing-abhineet-maini-s-neurogenesis-publication-is-a-humongous-success No The author - Jamie Larson - is another SPA No Vocal is another website where anyone can write stories. Also, the article is referenced entirely to primary sources and other unreliable sources. Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero on GS. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Did a search of my own and found no sources not listed above or in the article. (Aside from one dead link) Fails GNG Carpimaps (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see how meets WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, or WP:NAUTHOR. It's WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Source Analysis done by Spiderone appears to be faulty in numerous areas. They haven't done the fact checking for themselves. If they're subscribed to the Journal Nature, they should see why the Medium Article and The Substack Article are reliable sources containing true information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesirrrrr (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yesirrrrr has made no edits except to this page.
  1. Yesirrrrr has twice attempted to disrupt this discussion, first by changing another editor's post to misrepresent what that editor had said, and then by blanking the page. JBW (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU-confirmed sock of the article creator, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neiltyson12. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU-confirmed socks of the article's creator !voting "keep" --Blablubbs (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject made significant headlines recently. They were a subject to be talked about throughout the Scientific Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fffrrrrr (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article contains questionable but true sources. I have personally looked into the matter, and have found that the sources do contain true information and can be relied upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitsmelesdoit (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject only needs to add one citation to show that they're a part of the National Academy of Sciences, India. Even if they can't do that, they still have won a National Honor, which checks off the notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceguyswohoo (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely, definitely, beyond doubt. NPROF is generous, but this is taking the mickey. Subject has, according to Google scholar, three publications of which two are in a journal on Beall's list that's so appalling it's almost funny (iJRASET) and the other in a journal that's barely better. As a type-specimen of wildly-optimistic self-promotion, the subject certainly stands out of the crowd. As a scientist, less so. Elemimele (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on accuracy of article content: As Spiderone says above, the article states that Abhineet Maini is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Like Spiderone, I too have searched, and failed to find any confirmation of that. It is inconceivable that it would not be possible to find any confirmation if it were true. The article gives two awards which it says he has received. Again, I can find no confirmation, which would be highly improbable if the claims were true. It is also difficult to imagine why an award which exists for the specific purpose of honouring Ghanaian people would be given to a person who is Indian by birth and American by residence and place of work. To be totally blunt about it, the creator of the article was every bit as dishonest when he created this self-promotional vanity article as he has been in trying to disrupt this deletion discussion by several different means. (Vote-stacking by sockpuppetry, falsifying another editor's post in the discussion, blanking the discussion, removing the AfD notice from the article.) JBW (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's tempting to leave something up as a monument to the subject's promotionalism and dishonesty, but the source analysis is clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read through this AFD and it wasn't until I went to the article that I saw that this subject has accomplished all of these academic feats, gone to all of these prestigious universities, had these appointments, worked on high level research projects and he is only 16 years old. I don't see how that is possible. That makes me think this article is wandering into HOAX territory. In the Draft world, where I spend much of my time, I come across articles like this all of the time, drafts about teenagers (12-16) who have amazing accomplishments, all without any confirmation at all but maybe a very local paper saying that they are a smart kid. It can go beyond embellishment into fantasy land. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm impressed with the effort this person has gone through to get their article on Wikipedia. They've created (or at least worked with people to create) articles on free blog hosts, published papers on known predatory journals ([18]), created accounts on academia.edu, and set up a website on SquareSpace. This is not your average promotional article. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until I read Liz's comment, I hadn't noticed his age, but yes, Liz, he is 16. That prompted me to check further, and I found several other interesting facts, which combine together to convince me that this is not only a self-promotional vanity article, as I said above, but a self-promotional vanity hoax article. There is no need to let this crap stay on the publicly visible encyclopaedia for another 6 days while we discuss it: I am going to speedily delete it as a hoax. JBW (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Selectmen of Somerville, Massachusetts[edit]

Board of Selectmen of Somerville, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable town council; a WP:BEFORE search ("Board of Selectmen" "Somerville" "Massachusetts" -wikipedia.org) did not return anything focusing on the board of selectmen itself, while a search on newspapers.com similarly returned just standard proceedings. This board thus fails WP:GNG through a lack of significant coverge. While some of the people on the list may meet WP:NPOL through service in the legislature, the vast majority likely do not, so it fails WP:NLIST as well. Curbon7 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Massachusetts. Curbon7 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ugh. So for about thirty years, ending over a century and a half ago, a not-all-that-significant town (with apologies to a friend of mine raised there, and to my old high school principal, who was its superintendent of schools for twenty years) had a board of selectmen, and someone thought THAT was significant enough for a standalone article? Ugh twice; no. The only source this article ever has had is primary, the only coverage out there fails WP:ROUTINE. This falls so embarrassingly short of all notability criteria to merit a trout slap to the article creator, if his last edits to Wikipedia weren't over a year ago.

    (I'd oppose any notions of a merge as well; the entire span of Somerville's history as a town in the main article fills just a single paragraph, and every Massachusetts town -- no matter how tiny -- has a board of selectmen.) Ravenswing 18:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - before the invention of the automobile, Somerville was a small, rural town. Even in 1870, it had only 14,685 residents; only in the 20th century did it become a larger suburb of Boston, at times over 100,000 folks. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrew. Nominator has expressed interest in withdrawing, but says they lack the knowledge of how to do it; might as well do it for them. (non-admin closure) Why? I Ask (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Playlogic Entertainment[edit]

Playlogic Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The current sources aside from Tweakers.net and Joystiq are not significant. Joystiq is a blog so it is not reliable. All of the sources are only about the company's bankruptsy. I could not find any in-depth sources online. Carpimaps (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Has an in-depth mention in Global Game Industries and Cultural Policy by Anthony Fung (pg. 215–216) stating it had an "important legacy" in Dutch game development and the same with Video Games Around the World by Mark J. P. Wolf (pg. 370). I also see a use for the page considering it has released several independently notable products, and a page listing the games rather than simply a category better serves the reader. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure why this was nominated. In fact, it is quite odd it was. The nominator seems to discount any WP:SIGCOV around the bankruptcy. There is no basis for this. The claim that all coverage is around the bankruptcy is both incorrect and irrelevant. The following are LISTS of articles in the NATIONAL media of the Netherlands, i.e. each representing MANY articles, some excellent and clearly pulling Playlogic over the notability line.RTLNRCVolkskrantRDADND gidonb (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in both industry news sources (GamesIndustry.biz and others) and scholarly works as shown by Why? I Ask (full text here, see pp 215-216). Jfire (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This baseless nomination was made from a new account. Recently, there has been a trend at WP that new users or sockpops show up, make a few edits, then baselessly nominate articles. They seem to derive pleasure from pointless discussions or something of sorts. I'd appreciate if an admin can speedy close this. gidonb (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are forgetting to assume good faith. When I listed this article for afd, I felt that I had done a through search for sources. It's now proven that there are sources and I just did a poor job at searching sources. I apologize for making this afd and I will withdraw this afd when I figure out how to. Please remember the hanlon's razor. Carpimaps (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your withdrawal is appreciated. My concern is that we are wasting time better spent in the article space, which this nomination did. Please do NOT repeat nominations like this one! gidonb (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Rosa, Arizona[edit]

Casa Rosa, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not getting useful GHits on what comes up in the aerials as a big building, two swimming pools (one empty), a large foundation and several smaller buildings. Best guess would be some sort of recreational facility, but as I said, I'm not getting any good info. Mangoe (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bignotti, Arizona[edit]

Bignotti, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another entry from a Forest Service map, this appears to be a picnic site just west of the location indicated. There's no trace of any relevant settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, all I find is mentions by the Forest Service of a fly-fishing spot. Elinruby (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keep !votes failed to adequately address WP:GNG. ✗plicit 05:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milica Simić[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Milica Simić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. zoglophie 10:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@You play to win the game: read FAQ #2 WP:NSPORT. zoglophie 18:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO despite an impressive streak of wins. No other coverage or notability shown Jinian (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep when i searching Milica Simić cyrillic name in google Милица Симић бадминтон, there were 369 results. ex: politika.rs, pancevo, and srbin.info. Those results are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already did a WP:BEFORE on this article before nominating it for deletion and ran into these references in Serbian. There is not a stretch in these links which is close to WP:GNG. In addition, she hasn't had any international performance which (could) have contributed to much needed coverage, which is absent at the moment. zoglophie 13:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Anchor, as per how do you personally define WP:GNG? Where is the WP:SIGCOV? zoglophie 09:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when assessing whether someone is notable or not, it's pertinent to ask "Can we build a substantial biography from the sources available?" The answer in this case is "no". Politika mentions her along with a few other players. This is a routine results summary for university sport and she is never analysed in any detail. Pancevo details her winning a national championship, not sure if this is enough of an achievement for us to essentially do away with WP:GNG. The coverage in the article is weak. She is mentioned twice in the main text and once in a quote from another player. Srbin has a summary of various Universiade matches. She is mentioned 4 times altogether but it's only in the context of listing the outcomes of the matches. Nothing we can build a biography from as opposed to the stats stub that we currently have. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along the same lines as Spiderone. The provided sources fall pretty far short of being significant coverage (mostly just passing mentions), and I haven't been able to find any sourcing myself that would satisfy notability. The NBADMINTON pass doesn't move the needle too much, either: WP:NSPORTS2022 prop. 5 requires one source with sigcov at a bare minimum, and I haven't seen anything that would clear that threshold. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HME, Incorporated[edit]

AfDs for this article:
HME, Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NCORP and GNG. Small firetruck manufacture company based in Michigan. I couldn't find anything else about it. I also found out that the person who created the article is associated with the company by the name User talk:HME, Inc.

In the last afd someone mentioned this but like I said thats all I could find. Then again what @User:JBW said the google book only has 1 paragraph about it which doesnt make it notable`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the references presented in the previous AFD. [19] [20] The nominator also mentions that one user in the first AFD claimed that the Google book only has 1 paragraph about it which doesnt make it notable, but fails to mention that this same editor was corrected and acknowledged his mistake during the first AFD, later voting "keep." Furthermore, as the article has stood for over 12 years and has had a large list of editors during that time, I do not think COI is valid grounds for deletion in this case. Frank Anchor 05:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank AnchorKeep in mind that the editor that created the Wikipedia article is associated with the subject. Also deletion is neccesary, The souce has little to nothing about the subject, it mentions it a few times. The first source was deleted for whatever reason, so that doesn't make it notable.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough mention about the subject to consider it significant coverage, though I agree it would be nicer if there were better coverage out there as well. COI is a non-issue as a large list of other editors are responsible for the vast majority of the content on this page (well over 75%) Frank Anchor 12:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HelpingWorld, the mentions are small and the book is not about HME. It does not add onto notability. Carpimaps (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Carpimaps joined Wikipedia around the same time this AFD started and has an editing pattern highly unusual for a new user (a substantial percent of their contributions involve input on AFDs, adding warning templates to talk pages, etc).Frank Anchor 12:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor, the user page says new acocunt so it could be a old user.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 00:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient sources (2 books) that in my opinion just about meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TapNow[edit]

TapNow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG, no reliable secondary sources found. Failed PROD. Currently unreferenced. Justiyaya 04:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Japan. Justiyaya 04:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. When you filter out unrelated things with the same name (like the NFC technology, the keyboard accessory and the various companies that all share the name TapNow/Tap Now), there nothing but PR pieces, the app's social media accounts and the subreddit with a member count of 1. Even in Japanese all I could find are press releases. There's just no significant coverage in reliable sources to support this being an article. - Aoidh (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG, per nominator. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No good sources found from my search. Carpimaps (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom — Jumbo T (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON for an app launched in 2022. SpinningSpark 16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's all PR at this point, we can perhaps revisit in 6 months if this picks up as a platform. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too soon. MarioGom (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced article that does not pass WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW and too soon. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music 3000[edit]

Music 3000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage for a full article. Perhaps there could be an article on the whole "Music" series of games, but even then, it would need more information than what this article currently includes. Zerbu Talk 03:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Music Generator 2[edit]

MTV Music Generator 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage for a full article. Perhaps there could be an article on the whole "Music" series of games, but even then, it would need more information than what this article currently includes. Zerbu Talk 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elżbieta Jabłońska[edit]

Elżbieta Jabłońska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see that artist being notable. GizzyCatBella🍁 02:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus, I had added it because of search reasons and I see your point and I am okay with removing it. I was mostly concerned that others couldn’t find citations (as it was harder using the diacritics). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unnecessary Marcelus (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only - its not a "second name" its a different transliteration - if I had to type yjis person's name on an English typewriter then you would get that different spelling. People with names in Arabic and Chinese sometimes have several different transliterations of a single name and these are required so that search engines can find them. Victuallers (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above, references adequately meet notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - This can be closed now, as I also now think she might be notable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject and her art work are widely cited and recognized internationally with wide coverage that shows notability. Frankly, surprised this was included as an article for deletion. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources to be notable. She is the chair of a University Department. NMasiha (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romadona Dwi Kusuma[edit]

Romadona Dwi Kusuma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is very minimal in depth, internet searches didn't turn up anything not already cited. signed, Rosguill talk 01:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. signed, Rosguill talk 01:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found 7, 8, 9, and 10 among many many more Indonesian sources. Young player with ongoing career in fully pro Indonesian top flight which has a lot of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not enough in my view I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 21:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those look like routine releases regarding signing and loans. Are there any sources that actually discuss the subject's playstyle, contributions to teams, etc? signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned by other users, the provided coverage does not qualify as reliable independent WP:SIGCOV regarding the subject himself. Passing mentions are not valid sources for the record. --Angelo (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dongbo 39-class barge[edit]

Dongbo 39-class barge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cursory English Google search turns up no supporting sources. Single provided source is a page of a forum thread that is an enthusiast (?) listing of PLAN ship classes (not WP:RS.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. The article itself states that there is little known about the barge. Concur with the weak sourcing, although I wonder how much sourcing can be available about the PLAN. Jinian (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless better sources in Chinese are found. Mccapra (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_2&oldid=1132663193"