Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< July 16	July 18 >

Guide to deletion

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. After being relisted the consesus appears to be leaning towards Keep. Closing as Keep. Discussions about merging or redirecting the article can take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Premier Soccer League Canada[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a proposed association football league that stalled in its development over a year ago and is unlikely to ever play a game. It fails notability requirements for a football league (WP:FOOTY/Notability) I am wordsmyth (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. I am wordsmyth (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does appear to be mostly dead. But it would be a shame to lose the material, which surely does have some relevance to this history of womens' professional soccer in Canada. I wonder if the material could be distilled down to a paragraph or two and placed in Women's soccer in Canada#Club soccer or Canadian soccer league system#Women. At the same time, there isn't a page for Project 8, which does seem to be gaining traction, with 3 clubs now announced. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG as there was significant news coverage of the proposed league. Apparently there's a slightly different proposal now being considered (Project 8 / WPSL PRO). We can consider merging with that topic in the future. pburka (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it slightly different though, User:Pburka. Completely different organization, and the Project 8 league would operate on a higher level than the WPSL proposal. Meanwhile there's nothing precluding WPSL moving ahead with something later. I'm not arguing against - I really don't know what the best option is. Nfitz (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just speculating about the future. But the best option right now is to keep this page since the proposal is notable. pburka (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:FUTURE on product announcements apply here? "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." If all we have is an announcement and reactions to the announcement, even as significant and notable coverage, does that warrant an article? For instance, WPSL PRO, which also has some SIGCOV but few confirmed details, is listed on Women's Premier Soccer League rather than its own article — that seems appropriate. -Socccc (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Nfitz. Giant Snowman 19:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defunct or not, the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 23 July 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!} 23:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Ashraf 3 (MEK camp in Albania)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another POV WP:COATRACK about the MEK moved directly from draft to the mainspace (there have been several recently). The article is filled with POV-pushing and weasel words using sources like American Herald Tribune, Emerging Europe, etc. The notable aspects of the topic can already be found in the main article (where it's written with more neutrality). Alex-h (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is significant coverage in reliable sources such as The New York Times ([1]) or Foreign Policy ([2]), and continued coverage in reliable sources (of varying depth) in ABC News ([3]), RFE/RL ([4]), Associated Press ([5]), Al Jazeera ([6]), etc. Also the length of the main article, People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, calls for split articles, which have been repeatedly proposed in the past. MarioGom (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep::The subject is supported by well-known reliable sources. In fact, the topic has been worked on independently in different years in reliable sources:

The POV issue has been wrongly raised to delete the article. According to which Wikipedia rule is POV a reason to remove an article? This problem can be solved by editing the article and discussing it on the talk page.GharaDash (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, Iran, and Albania. MarioGom (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes the camp exists and there are sources saying so, but that doesn't solve the issues in this nomination. All the historical information about the MEK is already provided in the MEK article. The only points that are notable about this camp is that it hosts the MEK and that there was a raid there recently, both of which are covered in the main article (and there is a separate article for the raid). The POV WP:COATRACK problems here have not been addressed, and they're the main reason for the deletion nomination. This article also wikivoices from unreliable sources and from WP:CHERRYPICKING, violating several Wikipedia guidelines (WP:NOTADVOCACY WP:CFORK WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE WP:CHERRYPICK WP:POVPUSH WP:RS, and probably others too). Alex-h (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage about the camp started years before the raid. MarioGom (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, The Times (2021: [7]), Le Monde Diplomatique (2019: [8]), Associated Press (2022: [9]), Rudaw (2020: [10]), BBC (2019: [11]). And there has been also significant coverage from Albanian media, such as Tirana Times (2018: [12], Politiko (2023/post-raid: [13][14]) MarioGom (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: whatever good content can be derived from reliable sources back to People's Mojahedin of Iran where a reviewed history is already provided. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The People's Mojahedin of Iran is already too long, so we need split articles like this, just as we needed Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, which is what this article is. Also all the sources in this page only provide "significant coverage" that the PMOI members reside in this camp, and that's it. That's a presumed notability (unlike Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty, which are known for other things besides just housing the PMOI). ParadaJulio (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This camp is also known for other things including being MEK troll farm.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your MEK troll farm articles were deleted for being unsuitable for Wikipedia. What else is the camp known for (besides just being a residence)? ParadaJulio (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read The situation of members in the camp.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a different article with selective claims relating to the core article is not an acceptable solution to the content disagreements in the core article. ParadaJulio (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to WP:deletion, the debatable policies to delete the article can be any of WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. The comments by user: Alex-h are not considering these topics. If there's any POV issues, the discussion should be conveyed to the article talk page (WP:ATD-T). Any way, the Tirana camp is notable for its suitable coverage by reliable sources. On the other hand, Camp Ashraf is also notable for its own reasons. It is not necessary that both pages be notable for the same reason. The coverage by reliable sources matters. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not WP:INHERENT and group residences are not notable on their own. The sources describe the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran as what is notable. "Camp Ashraf is also notable for its own reasons." Which would those reasons be? ParadaJulio (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: to People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran. WonderCanada (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A proper merge to People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran is going to be virtually impossible (see its history). So only keep or redirect are realizable outcomes. MarioGom (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People's Mojahedin of Iran is already too long and further the article passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:31, 24 July 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 Euronav. Consensus suggest that a selective merge to Euronav is an ATD for this information Joyous! Noise! 21:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General Maritime Corporation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Have tried to reseach this company, can't find anything that suggests WP:CORP or WP:CORPDEPTH. Devoke water 16:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Wikipedia Library includes access to the extensive Miramar database of shipping articles and data. I have applied for access.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I left a message about this AfD at WikiProject Ships asking for their comments here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I think this company is defunct. Their domain is for sale. I found information about them at company-histories.com/General-Maritime-Corporation-Company-History.html. I'm not sure that's a reliable source but they mention some article sources at the end of the page.

If they once operated 43 big Suezmax and Aframax tankers, they were certainly notable. Tonnage-wise, that's about the size of the entire French-flagged merchant fleet and bigger than Russia's. I don't know if we can find sources to prove this, though. No proof, no article (because that means we don't have enough to build a reliable article).

We can potentially use selected EDGAR data as a reliable source for article-building but only if we prove notability first.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the bankruptcy filing the company's assets exceeded a billion dollars, and the article has (uncited) statements on the size of its fleet. At one time the entity surely was notable. Kablammo (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) And the New York Times also has published a number of articles on the company. Kablammo (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Euronav. No in-depth article about this one to meet our guideline but refs to support some text in Euronav, which is notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) into Euronav per above. By default includes redirect. Thanks for the research, A. B.! gidonb (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Euronav if by default there is already a redirect. WonderCanada (talk) 18:35, 24 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jaded)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not happen to get vmuch on this organisation except some news that is not very significant but is of course helpful. I also tried for looking online sources in Urdu language but failed to find any. There are some good mentions I am able to see through Google Book but this organisation lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable source that discuss it and its works. Since this is an offshoot of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, I suggest a merge to that article. Opinions please? ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe merging is a good idea, if for no other reason, to get consistency on the name spelling. The article mentions "Jadeed", as does the article it would be moved to. However, take note that the title of this page spells it "Jaded". — Maile (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66, yep, I suppose that is an inadvertent error, the article could be moved to a correct spelling, "Jadid" or "Jadeed" both of which are used in sources. This is to make sure correct name redirects to AIMPLB where it would be merged. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is another organisation, it cannot be merged. Some articles names it “Jadeed” and some names it “Jaded”. You can move it to correct spelling but not to AIMPLB, if you’ll do like this then you should merge Shia Personal Law Board too. Thanks |Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)|[reply]
The organisation being independent of AIMPLB is not the topic of this discussion but whether it is a notable one to be included ob Wikipedia, is what we are talking about. I do not find enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that could help, and that made me suggest an alternative to deletion (WP:ATD) of having some information mentioned on the AIMPLB article about the split and creation of this separate board. I haven't had enough time to go through resources about Shia Personal Law Board. If you feel it doesn't merit an article subject to notability guidelines, you are free to bring it on AfD but this discussion is not about that article. This is about "All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed/variants)", whether it is notable or not. I don't see any indications of this being a notable organisation per WP:NORG. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let more users to comment here. —- |Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)|[reply]

All India Muslim Personal Law Board and All India Muslim Personal Law Board Jaded both are different. Indian Muslim clerics opposed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board for working for the RSS, then through a meeting another Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadid) was formed by cleric of sunni barelvi muslim. Wikischolarrr (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is many significant sources available on Google please find in hindi. (ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड जदीद) https://www.abplive.com/news/states/those-who-reject-sharai-law-islam-will-not-accept-them-913254 Wikischolarrr (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources discuss All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed) significantly. It does have some routine coverage but that does not satisfy notability. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Indian news not a reliable source? Wikischolarrr (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi and @Wikischolarrr. Both seem to be different organisations with different ideologies. Okoslavia (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is seriously not a question here. This organisation is not notable per whatever is available on Internet about it. It fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG so it is not notable enough to have a standalone article. Merge/Redirect to the originisation from where it took birth is just as WP:ATD and not something that says both the organisations are one. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This organisation is not notable per whatever is available on Internet about it? really ? This policy is very new to me! Okoslavia (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is my WP:BEFORE, you can provide if there is anything significant available to you elsewhere. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the random AFD I come across alongwith dozens of afds I have participated. @Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi @Wikischolarrr You both seem to be familiar with the subject per your contribs, you can also cite offline sources if there any along with the decent source (abp live) which you have presented here at AFD. I am sure to say, there is no policy of Wikipedia which says that sources should be available on internet to make subject notable. Parting. Okoslavia (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi and @Wikischolarrr you might want to specify your votes by amending it as delete, merge or keep. This may help the discussion closer. Not sure though. Okoslavia (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source from The Milli Gazette a passing mention? Okoslavia (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also see

Jones, Justin (2010). "'Signs of churning': Muslim Personal Law and public contestation in twenty-first century India". Modern Asian Studies. 44 (1): 175–200. doi:10.1017/S0026749X09990114. ISSN 1469-8099.

Okoslavia (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Okoslavia, could you please be specific and tell how "significant" the fewer sentences in these two sources are? From MG, What came as a surprise was that not even a cursory note was taken of the creation of a new “board” called the “All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed)” founded on 10 December 2004 by one of the progenies of the founder of Barelvi sect, Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, on the plea that his sect was not properly represented on the old board is seriously not something I would call very much significant but it is okay & helpful (if we add to to other significant sources). The CUP source I am getting mentions just In November 2004,Tauqeer Reza Khan of the Barelvi school of Sunni Islam deserted the AIMPLB to establish a separate and somewhat make shift organisation known as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadid), representing a partial split from the original AIMPLB of one of the largest subdivisions with Indian Sunni Islam; and this is seriously not very detailed coverage. If you think mere two sentences about an organisation's split from another organisation and its establishment is worth, then I believe, a plenty of organisations would meet this criteria. I would at the least be happy with at least one paragraph in any reliable source that significantly discusses the works/history of any organisations. The two provided do not go beyond the "establishment and split", and hence my suggestion that this could be mentioned in a good detail on AIMPLB article. Please let me know if I missed anything. I would be happy to re-consider my thoughts. I am a human at all. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi is just making excuses because he belongs to Deobandi sect of Islam, He is here to delete this article and they don’t want Barelvi Muslims to progress on Internet and Wikipedia. The article passes WP:NORG do not excuse. We’ll fight with our Aqeedah but not on internet. The Subject is notable enough, it has great coverage you’re continuously saying not notable, what’s this? You’re not new to the policies. Don’t Do like this. I hope you’ll understand and stop making excuses. The subject is notable. ا—-•Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)•—ا[reply]

@Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi, you shouldn't be commenting on someone's personal inclination and I would call this a violation of UCOC. (Please avoid this in future). I have myself written/improved articles such as Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi (a Barelwi scholar) and got it on the mainpage. AfD's aren't sectarian debates but discussions about a certain subject's notability. You can help find resources and establish why and how the subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Don't bring anything else into this debate. Just present WP:THREE best resources that significantly discuss this organisation (offline/online) and for now we have just had one (Milli Gazette and Cambridge). I am counting this one because they talk exactly about the same thing. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi Please see IDL. And @TheAafi you are really missing the whole para in The Milli Gazette source which says, What came as a surprise was that not even a cursory note was taken of the creation of a new “board” called the “All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed)” founded on 10 December 2004 by one of the progenies of the founder of Barelvi sect, Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, on the plea that his sect was not properly represented on the old board. There is news in the air that Shias too are in the process of forming their own board for similar reasons. The Barelvi board is said to be part of a Congress effort to split Muslims. Maulana Tauqeer is an active Congressman and close to the Congress MP, Maulana Ubaidullah Azmi. Reportedly the previous BJP government too toyed with the idea and contacted a number of ulama for the purpose. You might want to see trivial mention where Wikipedia provided us the clear guidelines with example to understand what passing mention is. Also please review BLUDGEONING. It wastes more Wikipedia resources. You are also missing other coverage in Jones 2010. Please make sureThree is not the Wikipedia policy but an essay by an admin. Okoslavia (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Okoslavia, Thank you. I am not BLUDGEONING but just asking for what I could have missed and how the organisation is notable. Thanks for bringing more from MG. I am aware that Three is an essay but "even two resources are multiple" and if a subject has enough coverage in just two resources I am personally of the view that such a subject is notable. As you have quoted MG above, I believe this one is a significant source, but there should be some more. Are there any sources beyond routine coverage? The Cambridge Resource has three lines that I have quoted above (and I am still agreeing to consider it as a potential helper) but it is not detailed. Please let me know what is missed. I would be happy to withdraw the nomination, if provided with how this organisations satisfies notability. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi you can check this

Gupta, Akhil; Sivaramakrishnan, Kalyanakrishnan (2010-10-04). The State in India After Liberalization: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-93720-0.

Beyond what trivial mention says. Hope this helps. Okoslavia (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tschalaer, Mengia Hong (2017-07-04). Muslim Women's Quest for Gender Justice. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-15577-0. Fantastic example of significant coverage.

Okoslavia (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Okoslavia, Thank you. I am not able to find anything but a passing mention (like it split and was created in 2004) in Akhil 2010 but Tschalaer is better and significant (imo), and I myself found a few sentences on this from German scholar Mathias Rohe in slamic Law in Past and Present which I have updated in the article. Now that we have some credible sources discussion's this organisation's split from AIMPLB and creation, we have exactly very few resources that talk about any other aspects of it, except what I could get from Siasat on the Tasleema Nasreen case. I believe there should be more, but I am relieved, and I view this is close to borderline notability. Let's see how other uninvolved editors weigh in on this. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 July 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 LiteStep#History. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LDE(X)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged non-notable since 2012. Proposed for deletion back in 2016 as "Not notable or important. Poor quality information. Project also long-since defunct.", which was contested with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Sources are all primary. No third-party notability apparent. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Download links from SourceForge and a discussion thread in ArsTechnica, that's about all I can find. Delete for not meeting notability for software. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LiteStep#History. Found some coverage one of which could potentially be GNG usable, I can't manually dig through old computing magazines to prove or disprove the existence of GNG-meeting coverage, but at this point I believe the best place for it to be covered would be at that section, where it is already mentioned. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, it also reads like a technical manual, not very easy to understand --Devoke water 21:13, 22 July 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 International Carrom Federation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Carrom Confederation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability; appears to be a duplicate of Asian Carrom Billiard Confederation Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, an earlier deletion discussion occurred on this subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrom Association of Maldives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Organizations, and Asia. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 July 2023 (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!} 23:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to International Carrom Federation, per Visviva. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV online. Should be noted that this and Asian Carrom Billiard Confederation are not duplicates. One is a tabletop game, while the other is a type of billiard. ARandomName123 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Carrom Federation, where I have added a brief mention of the Asian confederation. The ICF article is in bad shape but from a quick look there at least are secondary sources to cite, which seems to be more than can be said for the ACC. -- Visviva (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Carrom Federation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:24, 23 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrel Wolfgang[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Made 11 appearances for Helmond Sport in the Eerste Divisie in the 2005–06 season. A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is definately SIGCOV. I will see if I can find more. gidonb (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources newly presented which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meantime, I found more articles with SIGCOV.[15][16] Previously, I had found this one.[17] Note also that this is in the "lull years" between newspapers keeping articles online and inclusion of articles in the national newspaper archives. gidonb (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Although the Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant piece is fairly in-depth and not quote-heavy like the other two articles Gidonb found, I don't think there is quite enough to pass the GNG here. Most of the coverage focuses on his appearing alongside actually notable footballers like Huntelaar and van Persie, or that there were big expectations for the former Heerenveen academy/U-21 national player. Jogurney (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is only the tip of the iceberg of what will be available after the newspaper articles are included in the national archives. See the Jeroen van Wetten AfD for illustration. These are gotcha nominations, utilizing a lull between newspapers and archives, that blow a hole in the coverage of Dutch football. gidonb (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does removing these as standalones blow a hole in Dutch football? They're microstubs, they're not offering any "coverage". Aren't the players all mentioned in lists covering teams/seasons already? JoelleJay (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLOW A HOLE - with enough reptition and lack of defense a huge hole. Otherwise a modest one. MICROSTUBS – This is a good point and not because I made it as well. Rather, because there should be more to article governance than just notability. It's the reason I do not bother with all that nom nominated. All are notable and all are in the lull. Most are microstubs. Only one was not and I should really not get into the person who created that. Microstubs add little to WP and can from my perspective always be replaced by or redirected to a list entry with some infrmation per item. Doesn't even need to be 100% identical. Or go to deletion with no prejudice. Hard deletion too in the case of this guy who inversed our categories and machine created many idiotic entries and lists along the lines of "Mario Bruno is an Italian film producer." I often get annoying blowback when I make this point ("but it's notable") so I cherish your comment. ALL MENTIONED – not really. gidonb (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per Gidonb. Clearly as significant figure in Dutch lower league football in 2000s so diefnily has more offense sources besides the many good ones above provided by Gidonb @GiantSnowman:. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep while Jerrel Wolfgang might not be an internationally renowned footballer, his career in the Eerste Divisie (the second-highest tier of football in the Netherlands) and representation of the Netherlands U21 national team make him a notable figure within the scope of football, fulfilling Wikipedia's notability guidelines for athletes. --Bash7oven (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bash7oven: Playing in the Eerste Divisie and for the Netherlands U21 does not confer notability. Please provide a policy-based rationale. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hm, I would provide this Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability however its' only an essay. Bash7oven (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bash7oven: WikiProject Football/Notability for players was deprecated a while ago which is why it states: "The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with." Robby.is.on (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, thank you! Bash7oven (talk) 09:14, 21 July 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!} 23:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Ferrucci[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. No indication of notability (looks like it was created for promotional purposes). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for PROMO. I can't find mentions of this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might have a shot at AUTHOR, but this needs a TNT. I can find a few reviews of the books. This but it's a brief mention [18]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Hildeoc (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources that might help with WP:GNG either 404 or are just book reviews. Can't find any myself online. Kalethan (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:34, 24 July 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; the page was copy-pasted from draftspace by a non-EC editor (WP:GS/RUSUKR)‎. Prolog (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wondered when he would come back, non-notable as in the last two or three AfD's. Minor mentions in publications, non-notable films. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Chile. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence he’s somehow become more notable since the last time.—-Ermenrich (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Gonzalo Lira is a notable person because he was imprisoned by the Ukrainian police, for only using his freedom of speech. Imprisonment of political opponents by the Ukrainian government and the Western world, is notable, and therefore this article should not be deleted. It's a First amendment right: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." *:Nybygger (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't Congress, we can't pass laws. He isn't American. Please re-read the article on the first amendment, it's not applicable here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY is established by coverage in WP:reliable sources, not by the fact that something is in the first amendment or you think it's important. There is no evidence that mainstream reliable sources outside the pro-Russian information bubble care about this man.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the 4th time in AfD, I'd salt liberally if this goes towards deletion, again. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 18 July 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!} 23:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FCIV.NET Freeciv 3D version[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AFD nom due to draftify/speedy delete contest. Sources 1, 3, and 4 are routine coverage, and 2, 5, 6, 7, aren't about the 3D version. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Attempted recreation FCIV.NET after it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCIV.NET. Note that FCIV.NET is indeed "FCIV.NET Freeciv 3D version". – Pbrks ^(t • c) 19:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Near identical content, created by the same editor as the last version, with no real improvement. Almost, but maybe not quite, a WP:CSD G4. -- ferret (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I object to deleting this article. There are now 7 sources about this topic. If you study all 7 sources you will see that they are in fact about this fine game. The statement from Sungodtemple here is false. Nybygger (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sungodtemple's statements are not false. Source #1 is a forum, invalid per WP:USERG. Source #2 is unreliable self-published social media, also invalid for notability. Source #3 is a routine announcement with precious little actual coverage. Source #4 is neither reliable nor SIGCOV and just refers to the slashdot forum post. Source #5 is an unreliable fan site, and isn't about the 3D version at all. Source #6 and #7, same as #5. There's no sigcov from reliable secondary sources here. -- ferret (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article! They Nay-sayers are all wrong!! Fciv.net is an open source, grass-roots Movement! Just watch this YouTube video about it: https://youtube.com/shorts/f_wxzEf68SM?feature=share Nybygger (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube is not a valid source. Why do we keep having the same article under different titles? Something's afoot. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a discussion earlier this year that found the subject non-notable. WP:AGF applies as well, with regards to claiming other editors are lying. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This is an accurate article about the game. There are plenty of links about this game, even though they are perhaps not of the highest quality. As I understand, the previous version was deleted for not having enough references. So you get a new page with more references. There is no bad intent here. I also do not think that saying a statement is false is the same thing as saying others are lying. It's more a disagreement than an accusation. Jove74 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) — Jove74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
None of this addresses the deletion nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version wasn't deleted for not having enough references in it. We don't delete things just because the references are missing from the article at a given moment in time. It was deleted because no one could find suitable sourcing about the topic that would demonstrate WP:GNG. And that has not changed. There's a difference between "suitable sources aren't in the article" and "suitable sources don't exist". This is a case of the latter. -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jove74 (talk · contribs)'s only edit is that comment. Smells socky. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am friendly to the game but I am nobody's sock puppet. Jove74 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it's always seen as very suspicious when someone makes a new account and their first edit is to go comment at an AFD. That's not a natural first move on Wikipedia. It's almost always a WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:MEATPUPPET, or WP:CANVASS issue. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis by ferret Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the previous AfD, I mentioned a possible redirect to the main FreeCiv article, which was not enough for the few "keep votes". Although I still think FCIV.NET could be covered by that article, the redirect (with FCIV.NET name or similar) may be created after this AfD. If the best source in the article is one short news on root.cz (here I don't share Ferret's assessment of reliability of that website), there is simply no coverage in reliable sources to write an article in encyclopedia. Pavlor (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, root.cz is a fine reliable news source. 2A02:2121:62B:CF74:0:0:5999:43A4 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor FCIV.NET from the prior AFD is currently a redirect. I think this new name was used because they didn't understand how to edit a redirect or avoid following it. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also seems to exist under Freeciv, [19] also for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that Nybygger was previously blocked for two weeks by PhilKnight, after being disruptive in the previous deletion discussion. It seems Nybygger is still hell-bent on keeping (some form) of the article and is still saying WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Nybygger for 2 days, not 2 weeks. PhilKnight (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. But my point still stands: they haven't learned anything from the previous discussion by recreating the article. I'd call that disruptive editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new article name was in good faith. This new article title is more descriptive and less ambiguous. I honestly believe that I am on the good side of history in this case. Thank you. Nybygger (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, in good faith, wish to create an article, But you need to make a better effort to understand our notability and sourcing standards though if you're going to keep making articles on Wikipedia, or this is going to keep happening. It's no coincidence that editors unanimously still believe that it doesn't meet our standards. If you understood the standards better, you'd understand the problem better. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the threshold for notability on Wikipedia? Is a big American website noteable, while a French and Czech, Slashdot (!!), and game-fan sites, and multiple YouTube videos, are anti-noteable? Why is Freeciv scheduled for deletion, while Civilization_(video_game) is not? Does Wikipedia not have enough hard-drives to store everything any more? Freeciv is available to every person on this planet for free, while Civilization is only available to a small fraction who can afford.Nybygger (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:Notability? ArcAngel (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is exactly what I'm referring to. A person who understands the notability standards would not think that's a valid argument. This would be a lot less frustrating for you if you take the time to learn what we're all trying to tell you. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for attempting to circumvent a previous deletion. ArcAngel (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This looks like an interesting project with a passionate community. It sadly seems to be common for people who are enthusiastic about these sort of independent games to strongly agitate recognition through creating articles here that fall very short of the site's editorial standards and rules, here in terms of WP:GNG. It's a shame that in this case it has been very difficult to convey an understanding of the standards to those involved. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 24 July 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!} 23:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Madden[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are her books or profiles. A Google search doesn't return much, such as an IMDB which may or may not be her, a news article that is definitely about a different Colleen Madden, and an obituary. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Women. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless additional and more substantial WP:RS guidelines can be identified, this seems like an easy call. One does not become notable by referencing themselves in their own books. This article fails to meet WP:GNG guidelines. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are very weak, her agent has edited this article, and seems to function as promotional vehicle. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 24 July 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 Nomination Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Maldon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one sentence biography article has one good reference. After further searching, unable to find additional sources to establish notability. It is missing Encyclopedia biography information such as Early life, Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours. Created on 6 August 2013. I did ask for help on the article's Talk page. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. Thankyou to all who helped improve this one. JoeNMLC (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and England. Karnataka (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I'm finding occasional reference to the subject in some contemporary and modern sources on the English Reformation. I believe it is this "William Maldon" who shows up in Foxe's Book of Martyrs (see here). Foxe's is not exactly a strictly reliable source, but it does suggest notability. Additionally, the official Seventh-day Adventist publication Liberty has also referenced Maldon's writings (see here). Maldon's account appears to have also been recorded in a book published by Cambridge University Press, A History of the Bible as Literature (a review that mentions Maldon's account can be found on JSTOR here). It's only occasional coverage, but there are instances of SIGCOV. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:45, 18 July 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!} 23:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Sky[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. No sources can be found to expand upon the article other than a list of awards and nominations. That doesn't make a person notable. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and France. Karnataka (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage to meet the WP:NBIO. As I understand it, porn industry awards don't contribute towards notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that Porn Industry awards dont count? I would think any award such as AVN Awards that has a wiki page should count. AVN Awards is the biggest Award in porn industry. Based on this she would meet WP:ANYBIO. I will gladly change my vote, if you can provide a policy that says otherwise. Naomijeans (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that when WP:PORNBIO was removed, it meant that awards no longer counted towards notability and coverage now needs to come from outside the industry. Here is the related discussion: [20] Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ANYBIO due to AVN awards.Naomijeans (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find something outside the awards to prove notability. And no, porn awards are not all notable. And how do you know this person is a woman? There is nothing online that states that. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This keep vote is invalid, porn industry awards counting towards notability was specifically deprecated awhile ago. Zaathras (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources have been provided in the article to establish notability. Non-notable porn awards and a directory listing do not count. Zaathras (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This director fails WP:FILMMAKER. Note: the article is outdated, and there was an AVN Hall of Fame induction in 2020. However, without independent reliable source coverage, this is yet another won-a-porn-award-but-the-sources-are-bad porn bio. Any claim to passing ANYBIO needs independent reliable sources that verify significance of the award. The consensus since 2019 is that, failing WP:BASIC, porn awards don't indicate notability by themselves. An independent search for RS coverage yielded the usual porn trade churnalism. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 24 July 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!} 23:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patebari Gaon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After searching, unable to find references to establish notability for this village article. It is missing information to show the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article by using multiple sources that meet four criteria. The sources should be (1) reliable (2) secondary (3) independent of the subject (4) talk about the subject in some depth. Created on 1 November 2013. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Assam. Karnataka (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete Getting nothing on this. Mangoe (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The place does not possess sufficient notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. It fails WP:GNG and WP:PLACE. According to my recent Google search, the only notable entity related to this place is the NGO called Patebari Rural Development Society.

Surprisingly, the NGO is situated in Makhibaha, Nalbari District, as mentioned in the "about us" section of the aforementioned website. Hence, I began to suspect the existence of the place. SaurabhSaha 17:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: here's what I've done for similar Indian towns and villages:

Look for it on Google Earth to see what's there.
Google "Indian census"+Assam. Go to the page for the state census from 2011 (or 2021 if available).
Download the huge spreadsheet that lists all the villages and their individual statistics. This will take awhile - the server is slow, sometimes even unresponsive.
Look for Patebari Gaon in the Nalbari district. If it's listed, it's considered officially recognized and meets WP:GEOLAND.

(Note that GEOLAND mentions "census tracts" - that's not what these villages are). Also, spelling can vary between our articles and the census due to differences in transliteration from the Assamese language.

I'd do this myself expect I'm in an area with sketchy internet access for several days.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:20, 20 July 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Community[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are very few sources in the wild, and the sources linked in the article appear to be cherrypicked. I'm not sure this is notable. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Guatemala. Curbon7 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you clarify what you mean when you say the sources appear to be cherrypicked? Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The party just won two seats in the parliamentary elections in Guatemala. Of course it's notable. Number 5 7 07:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG. Nom's claim that the sources are "cherry picked" makes no sense. Central and Adams (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN. I nominated this unable to find articles myself. I realized that it's likely due to my locale settings, and just because I couldn't find sources doesn't mean sources were cherrypicked. I jumped to a rash conclusion, likely because I had dealt with other nonsense articles the day I nominated this so I was still in that headspace. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:24, 21 July 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 Threads (social network). (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Threads (application)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. Could easily be a section in the Instagram article itself. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Instagram. Doesn't pass WP:SUSTAINED -- there's plenty of coverage of its launch and plenty of coverage of it getting shut down with almost nothing in between. Puhala,ny (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge to new threads Baratiiman (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ . There's talk about the launch of the app, of the data being collected, of them not being allowed to operate in the EU, about Elon suing them. Literally hundreds of RS found. Oaktree b (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing Threads (application) with Threads (social network). Charcoal feather (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware they were two different things. I'll revisit this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to instagram seems like the best option. Oaktree b (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Threads (social network). I think the "predecessor" section in that article is the most natural location. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Threads (social network) Predecessor section. Steven Walling • talk 02:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. TIL it was a thing! SWinxy (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Threads (social network) Predecessor section.--Panam2014 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Threads (social network).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 July 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!} 23:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed icebreakers of Canada[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a redundant orphan article with very little existing unique content or potential for expansion. There is one historical Canadian icebreaker project, the Polar 8 Project (and the article also covers its short-lived predecessors, Polar 7 and Polar 10), and three ongoing projects (polar icebreakers, program icebreakers and multi-purpose vessels) under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (primarily covered here until they have progressed far enough to warrant a dedicated article). A separate article covering only Canadian icebreaker projects is therefore not needed; if everything goes as planned, in a few years it can be expected to shrink into covering just the cancelled 1980s project. In order to avoid content growing stale, I propose that Proposed icebreakers of Canada is deleted and effort is focused on individual project articles with summary either under NSS or, as it presently is, under the CCG equipment article. Tupsumato (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative to deletion, the article could be merged to a new article/list Proposed ships of Canada covering also other projects in Category:Proposed ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and any non-RCN Canadian ships under Category:Proposed ships, Category:Cancelled ships etc. However, if "proposed ships of XXX" articles are not commonly created for countries, I am primarily proposing the deletion as per above. Tupsumato (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As both proposed vessels have their own articles, there is no need for this one. Kablammo (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for this page Llammakey (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Canada. Karnataka (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree this article superfluous. It might be useful to have a link to Polar 8 Project in List of equipment of the Canadian Coast Guard, either under "Procurement" or in a new "Cancelled projects" section. Davidships (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are so many other articles that the information about the Polar 8 and the proposed Class 2 icebreakers are covered by. I don't see that this article adds anything to those; nor is a reasonable search term. It's possible though, that there's space for a summary article of the various Canadian icebreakers, proposed, in-service, and under-construction for the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy (a combined article given the class overlap). But this is not that article. BTW, there is also List of icebreakers#Canada Nfitz (talk) 07:00, 21 July 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 Twitter. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of the end of Twitter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet general notability and could easily be a section in the Twitter article, if even that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a search and there are other articles similar to this- Predictions of the end of Google and Predictions of the end of Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind culling all of them. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree about notability. And to extend the argument to WP:NOT, it's hard to see hot-take opinion pieces as Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field (WP:CRYSTAL). The 2014 and 2016 predictions in the Twitter article, and the truly stupid predictions at Predictions of the end of Google, should show that this type of content lacks encyclopedic value. Market share data/traffic metrics would be encyclopedic (whether they show a rise of decline, as long as it's reliably sourced), but would belong in the main article. DFlhb (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL is exactly right. Some people consider a major reorganization to be a kind of end of Twitter as we know it, some mean the end of its mainstream popularity, some are predicting the company will declare bankruptcy, some mean the Twitter name and website will go offline forever. Anything is possible, but the topic is far too vague to be verifiable. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 22:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, then why is Predictions of the end of Wikipedia an existing article? I don't think it's a violation, it is reliably sourced. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia predictions mostly relied on philosophical/sociology arguments (that Wikipedia "could never work"). The predictions themselves are pure opinion (primary), and without the academics (secondary) analyzing and dismissing the bullshit Wikipedia predictions for what they are, that article would be a basic POV fail. My argument wouldn't change if I had a time machine and knew for a fact that Twitter was going to die three months from now; we're still just listing people having "predicted nine of the last five recessions".

This is a child articles; if these op-eds wouldn't be WP:DUE enough for an entire summary-style section in the parent article, it makes little sense for the child article to exist (which no one will come across). DFlhb (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete, synth, more than half of the refs are just Musk-related hype. Artem.G (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary junk drawer. A redirect to Twitter wouldn't hurt, but wouldn't be obligatory either. Predictions and speculations made for different reasons at different times are, if they need to be discussed at all, best covered within the history of Twitter so that they have the proper context. Otherwise, we're doing the equivalent of writing a "Top 10 Times Twitter Was Declared Dead" listicle. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. SWinxy (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Twitter per WP:ATD. I think it can be summarized in a sentence or two. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect: Agree with this proposal. User:Let'srun 18:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should note that there is also a Predictions of the end of Google and Predictions of the end of Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: a (very) short summary to Twitter. WonderCanada (talk) 10:51, 24 July 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. Consensus is that the festival is notable. I suggest the links that Filelakeshoe and WonderCanada listed be added to the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outlook festival[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a music festival is severely undersourced. We've deleted it at AfD before, many years ago, but it has been re-created with slightly different capitalisation in the title, thereby accidentally bypassing the warnings and not showing in the logs. Please will the community authorise deletion of this content? —S Marshall T/C 08:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 08:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outlook Festival.—S Marshall T/C 08:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the festival is notable. It may not have been in 2009, when it was only a year old, but it certainly is now. Here are some sources which aren't just routine lineup fodder:
- Minamore, Bridget. "Ten Years in, Who Does Outlook Festival Serve?". Vice. Retrieved 13 July 2023.
- Rowlands, Mark. "Croatia's capital of bass". TimeOut. Retrieved 13 July 2023.
- "DJs show us around the Outlook site". Mixmag. Retrieved 13 July 2023.
- Coldwell, Will. "Croatia cranks up the festival volume". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 July 2023.
- There was a hefty police raid at the 2017 edition which got some news coverage [21] [22]
- The festival is also mentioned in several books such as Anderton, Chris (2018). Music Festivals in the UK: Beyond the Carnivalesque. and Mazierska, Ewa; Győri, Zsolt (2019). Eastern European Popular Music in a Transnational Context: Beyond the Borders., as well as many Croatia travel guides.

– filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable based on what's given above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable festival. WonderCanada (talk) 10:47, 24 July 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!} 23:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Heads[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Future film that has no evidence that it actually began production, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 09:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL. The Film Creator (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify, not notable and the film is stuck in development, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. The Variety source on casting looks usable and it will probably be notable if released, but we need much better sourcing to write an article at this stage in production. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 22 July 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 Close‎ due to questions about the nom. Any established editor is welcome to renominate this if need be. Star Mississippi 03:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kramik Yadav[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Wikisfrog (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This Wikipedia creator must have taken money in exchange for this or he is new in this field. And the reviewers of this page are also wonderful. All the references in this article are paid.[reply]

First of all, this person is not remarkable. And all the news articles used on the page have been paid for. No journalist covered any news.

Hindustan Times maintains a "Brand Stories" category for paid news, Outlook maintains "Business Spotlight", Live Mint maintains "Brand Stories", Mid-day maintains "Brand Media", and ABV Live maintains "Brand Wire".

Many people in India are running AIDS to serve Wikipedia, this is also one of them. I request that this person should be properly investigated.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- He has won notable awards like Dadasaheb Phalke and have reliable reference for same. It may be moved to draft for improvement but no need for deletion. DSN18 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The award he won is Dadasaheb Phalke Indian Television Award not Dadasaheb Phalke. Dadasaheb Phalke Indian Television Award is not recognized. Finally, this article is created by a paid Wikipedian. Wikisfrog (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination by Wikisfrog is literally their first edit (using this account). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Citations are paid articles/no independent coverage. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:16, 19 July 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) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go Topless Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Go Topless Day (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is exclusively told from an American POV. The first sentence of the article directly states that it "is an annual event held in the United States to support the right of women to go topless in public on gender-equality grounds." All of the info on this page has been directly lifted from Female toplessness in the United States#Political_movements which is the more appropriate place for this information to be presented. As this page is an exact copy it does not warrant an entire page to itself. I suggest deletion. Agent123456789 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep, An annual event held in the United States will be sourced with American references. Nothing strange about that. Christian75 (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been deleted already. Red-linked. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sexuality and gender, Canada, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see plenty of coverage from a variety of news sources, spanning a decade, so I'm not seeing a notability problem. Moreover, I would like to note that Canada is not, in fact, part of the United States, and the CBC, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, and National Post are Canadian news outlets, not American ones. -- asilvering (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per asilvering; content which touches on Canadian aspects does not belong in an article about the United States. The assertion by the nominator that this article is an exact copy is therefore either incorrect or can be fixed by normal editing processes. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the sources already in the article are much, much more than are necessary to meet the GNG. Perhaps Nom is correct that the info would be better placed in another article, but this can be handled by merge or redirect and is therefore a matter for ordinary editing. Central and Adams (talk) 12:51, 21 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero (2000 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find some reviews on other websites, but none of them satisfy WP:SIGCOV or WP:NFILM. ARandomName123 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage of this low budget film in any reliable independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The film has been internationally distributed (with different titles in English, in French (Séisme imminent) (very very short review here), Canadian French (Alerte au point zéro), Spanish (very short review here), Italian, 2 titles in German, etc.), various paragraphs of this article deal with the film, so I'd say Keep; worst case scenario, Redirect to Janet Gunn who plays the lead role.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 17:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Spanish review is a database entry while the French review is a one-liner. Only a passing mention in the earthquake article. No significant coverage. DareshMohan (talk) 18:04, 21 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Denkovski[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An individual that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. Only one of the included references is still accessible, and it is not actual coverage, his name is merely listed on a list of casualties. Given that the other references are given the same description here, I would imagine those sources would have been similar. Searches for both "Dejan Denkovski" and "Дејан Денковски" did not appear to bring up any significant coverage on this particular individual, but I am bringing it to AFD rather than WP:PRODing it, in case others are able to find non-English language sources. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and North Macedonia. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The article Oliver Petrushevski should likely also be deleted under the same rationale. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:41, 18 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disavowed[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable band. Sourced to crowdsourced sources. Valereee (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Netherlands. Valereee (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that the article is outdated, as the final sentence says that a "new album" was due in 2020. That actually happened, and I found a lengthy review of that album here: [23]. However, that is the only in-depth media source of any kind that I can find on the band for any point in its history. They have brief listings at directory sites like Spirit of Metal, which are not encyclopedic, and they sometimes get mentioned as a historical tidbit in articles about other bands that this band's members were in previously or later. They have historical connections but are too many degrees of separation from notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, User:doomsdayer520, and my own research. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 21 July 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 05:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francoforte[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable restaurant whose sources are quite local (meaning they fail WP:AUD). All are written promotionally, as is the article. There's no indication that this restaurant is notable in the long run or at the present time. The sources lack WP:SIGCOV, and they mostly focus on the food and the interior of the restaurant. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Australia. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few local reviews. Not sure if urbanlist is reliable and is advertising? LibStar (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 17 July 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 14:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliya Siddiqui[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing notability, the instagram post isn't notable. The films perhaps are. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't pass as per WP:PRODUCER, no notable films and no in-depth coverages from reliable sources. DSN18 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holy Cow (film) already gives her producer credits. WonderCanada (talk) 10:43, 24 July 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 14:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamantak Ganguly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable athlete, holding various non-notable records. Fifth place in a tournament is hardly wiki-worthy, outside of any other sourcing. Gsearch is straight to social media or interviews. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no mention of him at any Kyokushin websites. This is the style he learned from his father and is typically thought of when full contact karate is mentioned. I found no mentions of the tournament in Hungary in any sources except for those mentioning the subject's success. The remaining coverage consists of some personal interviews and some mentions about events related to his father's organization and/or dojo. There's no evidence of him competing at any world championship. He appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 17:23, 23 July 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 14:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallie Lauer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journalist, appears to be simply a working reporter. Text used in the article is somewhat PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nominator; subject simply fails WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 18:28, 22 July 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 14:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Peluso[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable publisher/businessman, or academic. There is no record of him as a publisher, the academic criteria here don't seem to fit either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that he passes the requirements of NSCHOLAR or NAUTHOR, and no sources sufficient for GNG. Most of the sources in the article are primary, except for the Pittsburgh Magazine piece and the Littsburgh entry, both of which appear to be at least somewhat promotional and not entirely independent of Peluso. I can't find anything more than this myself. WJ94 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 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 14:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinvent[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG - certainly no WP:SIGCOV. PepperBeast (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and India. PepperBeast (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find apart from the company's own site was a Crunchbase entry (not RS) and a couple of product reviews. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ANI News and Globalnewswire are the only sources found, both are PR pieces. Delete for lack of sourcing, no coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 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 Withdrawn‎. In light of new sources provided by Gorden 2211, I withdraw the nomination. (non-admin closure) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunwin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP: I can only find press releases and passing mentions of the company, nothing that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Draftify/Move into my userspace. Google search using the Chinese name for the company brings up 19 million results, which should be more than enough to dig through for some sources. That being said I don't think this article should be rushed to bring onto the mainspace until more work is done. I may work on it more after it is drafitified. SBS6577P (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Now that Gorden 2211 has successfully expanded the article on the history of the company, and also since more sources have been added, changing my vote to keep. The article still has tons to expand on, but for now it should be enough to demonstrate notability. SBS6577P (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company has a long history under different names, and is still a major manufacturer in China. There are still parts of the history to fill out, but the current history already makes the company notable with in-depth coverage by different news sources. There should also be articles in various languages spoken in South America, as the company has been popular there, but I don't know that language. Gorden 2211 (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:10, 22 July 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) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 15:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Shelby the Swamp Man[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article heavily relies on primary sources, a quick Google search only shows information about Shelby Stanga himself or brief mentions of the show. Fails WP:NTV. Spinixster (chat!) 10:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spinixster (chat!) 10:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom's bang on the money - all primary sources and more out there but nothing to take us past WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep [24] and this [25], combined with the Common Sense media link in the article, I think we just have enough for notability. Just barely over the line. Add this for what it's worth [26]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the Washington Post source can be used since it seems like it's just a listing of the shows airing for the day. Spinixster (chat!) 03:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b. The sources seem ample to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold of covering the article subject sufficiently directly and in sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content. Even the WaPo paragraph reaches that threshold in my opinion -- it's a bare 55 words but can be cited directly for a number of salient facts without running into OR concerns. As a fallback, if not kept, I'd advocate merging to Ax Men as a new L3 section, since that seems like a reasonable way to cover a marginally-notable spinoff. -- Visviva (talk) 03:48, 19 July 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. There seems to be a general consensus to keep here — a few of the arguments were WP:ITSIMPORTANT, but with sources added and the "wait" argument, I see a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A niche-like topic of a product issued by the Storm Prediction Center that seems to fail WP:N. Editor has a history of creating similar lists that have been deleted. United States Man (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Similar list to the List of United States tornado emergencies. “Niche” lists are allowed on Wikipedia. An example of another niche topic is List of United States tornadoes in July 2023, which has only one non-NOAA reference or Cylindera arenaria, which I found through the random article button, which has only 2 references and 1 sentence. More references were added this morning ([27][28][29][30][31]), so it passes notability criteria well more than the other two “niche” articles referenced above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comment: Here is a news article (Are Radar-Indicated EF5s Possible in the Future?), which covered the SPC’s issuance of the first one & here is an article from Forbes which also mentioned one of these products. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Article hasn't been around for enough time to determine its notabilty. Is worth noting that nominee has often rushed to start a deletion process on new articles. Currently leaning towards delete but to early for me to make a conclusive decision. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 16:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't think articles on MCDs are needed, but I don't feel like giving a yes or no here. ChessEric 13:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait — I'm not necessarily against the article but I would like to see more references, or really any reliable references, confirming that the article subject exists in a meaningful and distinct way, separate from SPC mesoscale convective discussions (MCDs). Other NWS documentation—see pages 10 and 11—refers to this kind of product as a "meso-beta scale MCD", but with a slightly different definition. I know Andrew Lyons is an NWS forecaster but I don't know that his two off-the-cuff tweets are a supportive foundation for an article, given that the topic of MCDs as a whole don't even garner their own article.

Penitentes (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found this (Subdividing the Mesoscale) from Penn State Universitiy’s meteorology department, which defines what the “meso—gamma” is. I’ll keep looking for any other references. I’ve found a handful of news articles that share the SPC’s meso—gamma/meso—beta mesoscale discussions, but they aren’t calling them “meso—gamma” or “meso—beta”. I’m fairly sure that is the term only meteorologists use for them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SPC MCD's are specialized and technical discussions. These discussions are mainly used by meteorologists and weather enthusiasts to predict and understand weather patterns, and do not usually have a direct and immediate impact on the general public. Wikiwillz (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to point out that these meso—gamma/meso—beta discussions are specifically for, “high impact high confidence violent tornadoes”, which are ongoing at the moment. SPC Forecast Elizabeth Leitman also said, “WFOs also aren’t our only users. TV meteorologists and EMs also use MCDs.” So, one could argue that it does have basically just as an immediate impact on the general public as say a tornado emergency, which we have List of United States tornado emergencies. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This article is very important and useful because of the topic. I am slightly leaning to deletion, but I think the page should be kept. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like more references have been added, and therefore looks like it passes WP:N guidelines. Looks in better shape since nomination began. Tails Wx 14:12, 23 July 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 Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Mipha. RL0919 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mipha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like Daruk or Revali, which are already closed as merge, this character seems to be failing notability also. Unlike Prince Sidon who received its popularity for being "sexually attractive" (I guess), meanwhile Mipha didn't. Reception mostly contians only rankings and trivia articles. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Collectively the sourced content seems to fullfill the requirements of WP:GNG/WP:WHYN. Being a "fascinating, complex character" and "a beloved character" don't seem trivial mentions to me. Daranios (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Literally came from a situational listicle source "Breath Of The Wild: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Mipha" that isn't directly talking about the character or being the main topic of the article (= not SIGCOV), but okay I guess. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 15:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenish Pickle!: Whatever other considerations there maybe about a source, WP:SIGCOV specifically says to be significant coverage the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." But in this specific case, Mipha IS the main topic, as the title says. Daranios (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you are talking about was published by Screen Rant, which cannot be used to demonstrate notability per WP:VG/RS TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and so it seems are Game Rant and The Gamer. Sad that these sources are biased that way, thanks @TarkusAB: for pointing that out. In that case amending my !vote to merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Mipha until someone can find more sources. Daranios (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much being biased (they're perfectly fine solely as sources of info/commentary) as they don't really have a bar in terms of inclusion. Their aim is solely to generate content on niche topics, which is somewhat of the reverse of what the notability policy is intended to do, so they often wreak havoc with people assuming it's evidence something should have an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Thanks for pointing that out, indeed I meant biased with regard to area of coverage (notability question) not with regard to content of their articles (reliability question). Though I find Haleth's comments on that interesting that the situation is not quite so clear-cut. However, I have no energy to get into this. Daranios (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't see any of the solid critical analysis that are in well-sourced character articles. There's a good amount of links to Screen Rant and Game Rant, which do not demonstrate notability. It would not make much sense to keep only this character when we already have concensus to merge Daruk and Revali. The sourcing is pretty similar. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Mipha. Can't find much about her outside of content farm-y sources. Seems like a prime candidate for a character list entry, but not a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zxcvbnm: Question: how should we do a character list for Breath of the Wild? I feel like Tears of the Kingdom would be included, but would it be something like, "Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom"? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Basically yes. There's not much of a shorter way to put it since, technically, it's still set in Hyrule. Personally, I advocate for the "List of characters..." naming scheme since it's, well, a list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just don't love it since it leads to list-class assessment, which, IMO, is reserved for content that can't really be judged as Stub/Start/C/B/GA/A/FA. Anyway, do you have any interest in helping with one? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I might pop in to fix things, but I wouldn't expect a massive amount of heavy lifting. I'm not a particularly large BOTW fan. It's fine in the general list of characters for now, I simply suggest that if someone's interested, a more specific list can be split off. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could someone link me to the actual discussion where a group of editors have formed a solid consensus that Game Rant, Screen Rant and TheGamer cannot be used to demonstrate notability? As I recall, the last time I accessed that page just under a year ago, there was no such formalized determination anywhere on the project. I checked the page history and no one has left an edit summary which explained that this sites are now marked as unusable to demonstrate notability, none of the linked discussions for each of the sites on the reliable sources page contain references to this. So it looks like these have been unilaterally added by an editor who may or may not have a bias against Valnet properties (justified or otherwise), and no one has done their due diligence or fact check whether there is consensus about it thus far. Haleth (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: The most recent discussion was 1 year ago here which you yourself participated in, but there was a widespread consensus that GameRant was situational, leaning unreliable. Since ScreenRant and TheGamer are run by the same people in the same manner, the consensus would naturally extend to those as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was 2 years ago actually. Again, there is no consensus in that discussion which says any of the sources cannot be used to prove notability period, only "use with caution". And it wasn't just me who pointed out that ScreenRant and TheGamer seemed to look better when compared to GameRant. We should assess the sources on a case by case basis, not make sweeping assumptions about their reliability just because they are owned by a certain parent company. We don't blatantly call out Fox News as unreliable under all contexts, just because the UK branch of the Murdoch news empire is deemed to be so by other editors. Haleth (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like some of the Valnet sources should help notability, thou it shouldn't be irrelevant articles like "Breath Of The Wild: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Mipha" or the rankings. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was broad agreement that no Valnet sources should count towards notability. If the idea of a situational source didn't exist, it would have likely have just been called unreliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please link to the specific discussion/consensus that formalizes the notion that Valnet sources should not count towards notability. Haleth (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this. But the discussion is more on sourcing in general, and I don't see a consensus there. Even in that discussion, there's a split whether to ban Valnet completely, or to keep it usable, but not for notability.

I would actually have to be in agreement with GreenishPickle. I think something like this should contribute to notability. Something like this, however, not so much. MoonJet (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG/S explicitly states that Valnet sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 11:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I had initial thoughts that this one could be fine, but comparing it to Urbosa, I don't think there is much here to improve. Merge into the Characters of The Legend of Zelda. Though on that subject, I still reiterate that I think Urbosa is notable enough and shouldn't be nominated for deletion. NegativeMP1 (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda. Pretty cut and dry case here. Not much else to say. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 11:18, 24 July 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 List of Clamp works#Short works. ✗plicit 12:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shiritsu Horitsuba Gakuen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2017. Unable to find any RS coverage. Fails WP:NBOOKS. A previous PROD was contested in 2017. Charcoal feather (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Charcoal feather (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment French wiki article has no sources, Japanese one has some, unsure of how RS they are. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All ja-wp sources are primary. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the Ja-wiki source explanation. I can't find anything we can use for sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Clamp works#Short works per nom; this title doesn't seem to have any non-primary coverage. Link20XX (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this is more of cdrama collections that Tsubasa article of discography already has collected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintor2 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 July 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 12:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOIL-CD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that this meets GNG; I cannot find any sources which would suggest otherwise. WJ94 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to list. There's local programming but not as much local coverage as even WJOS had. There is coverage of a bankruptcy in 2000 in The Daily Home, but nothing else that really talks about the station at length. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I really only say that because any station with local programming can be potentially notable, which is certainly a step above the numerous (HC2 or otherwise) nothing-but-diginet LPTVs we're finally weeding out as well. But our notability standards are nonetheless much tighter than they used to be — and GNG looks for significant coverage, not passing mentions (alas, I think that bankruptcy article falls under that category — if the headline is any indication, it was really about the station's then-parent entity, Church on the Rock, and not (what was then) WOIL-LP specifically). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 21 July 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 Nightwish discography#Compilation albums as an alternative to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wishmastour 2000[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM, as well as having been tagged for needing additional citations for ten years. HorrorLover555 (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits in Google at all. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The band's autobiography also mentions the compilation in its discography section in the book - but it is not enough as there would have to be more detail than just a mention. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nightwish per above. Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable compilation album. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nightwish discography#Compilation albums, where it is mentioned. This is a plausible search term and should be tagged as {{R from album}}. ✗plicit 12:42, 24 July 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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 15:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Steuerwald[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I saw was routine coverage on transfers/contract extensions. JTtheOG (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. JTtheOG (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bundesliga player with plenty of coverage from a variety of sources to support an article. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] (Not all of those pass GNG - the English language one may not be a RS - but enough do.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. The Badische Zeitung articles are paywalled and the others are just WP:ROUTINE contract signing stories. Dougal18 (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Being paywalled means nothing when it comes to determining notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. The Badische Zeitung pieces by SportingFlyer, although paywalled, do look to be SIGCOV based on the titles (e.g. "Stürmerin Samantha Steuerwald verstärkt die Frauen des SC Freiburg" [Striker Samantha Steuerwald strengthens the women of SC Freiburg]) but the other pieces look to brief to count towards GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I also thought that article looked promising, although it might be another transfer piece from the looks of it. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per SportingFlyer. Young player with ongoing career in German women's Frauen-Bundesliga, one of best women leagues in world. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Badische Zeitung allows viewing up to five articles per month on free email registration, if you can navigate their broken email registration system. I believe this Sept. 2020 article covering her transition from forward at SV Werder Bremen to defender at SC Freiburg, in addition to the above coverage I've incorporated to the article, fulfill the WP:RS/WP:IS/WP:SIGCOV requirements. -Socccc (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All you have done is WP:REFBOMB with press releases, brief mentions and unreliable sources (Bild). No matter how many times her contract renewal with Freiburg is cited it is routine coverage that does not go to passing GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Dougal18 that this article fails WP:GNG for now. The Badische Zeitung article from 6 November 2020 looks like it is SIGCOV (I tried unsuccessfully to register to read it in its entirety), but nothing else comes close. The 2008 article about her dream of playing professionally (as a 9-year old :)) is interesting, but only a paragraph. The other coverage is not in-depth or entirely routine (as noted above, when dozens of media organizations carry the same press release about a contract announcement, it's not a sign of notability). I would support draftification as an alternative to deletion since I think it's just a matter of time before there is more in-depth coverage available. Jogurney (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per SportingFlyer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:13, 21 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Bill[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pages for franchises are useful when there are multiple instalments and you want to provide an overview of the whole thing. But there are only two Kill Bill movies, Kill Bill Volume 1 and Kill Bill Volume 2, so an overview page is unnecessary. This article merely duplicates information from both articles. Popcornfud (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MOS:FILMSERIES. If the article contained a substantial amount of unique content that would have been difficult to house in either of the other two articles then an exception may be justified, but that isn't the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm not seeing anything that isn't already covered in one of the two existing film articles. This standalone article is unnecessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kill Bill's article. It even states in the first sentence that the two parts are just one movie. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kill Bill Vol. 1. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. also the two parts are just one movie. Lethweimaster (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article and make a new disambiguation page that provides links to the two films. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FILM SERIES. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete planning a sequel doesn't count. DareshMohan (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the sequel is canceled anyway! Popcornfud (talk) 18:21, 21 July 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 List of New Caledonia international footballers. Sandstein 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kakou[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Four official appearances for the New Caledonia national football team; no indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lots of hits on les Nouvelles Caledoniennes, but unclear whether they will have anything which meets GNG.--IdiotSavant (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 18:23, 18 July 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 List of New Caledonia international footballers. Sandstein 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Hne[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Seven official appearances for the New Caledonia national football team; no indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 18:23, 18 July 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. I see a consensus here to Keep this article but a disagreement over whether sources satisfy WP:BASIC. This same situation occurs on quite a lot of AFD discussions I review so it might be worth further discussion on a policy talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tjep Hoedemakers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. JTtheOG (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. (Update from weak keep to keep after examining several more match reports) This player was on the third place team for 2023 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup which suggests notability. Subject shows up in loads of match reports that cover snippets the subjects' actual play eg [37][38][39], there are many more. I think we can safely meet WP:BIO via If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability —siroχo 07:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I'm not mistaken, the part of that sentence you omitted ("trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability") means that trivial mentions cannot be combined to establish notability in the way you describe. Two of these three sources are from the International Hockey Federation, which wouldn't be independent anyways. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Apologies about the non-independent sources. There are quite a few independent sources out there [40][41][42][43]. You can click the "news" link in the the AFD template and add "-FIH" to find several more.
  
  I did not include the additional phrasing because these snippets of actual play are not trivial coverage as defined by WP:BASIC, rather they are short bits of coverage. Short does not mean trivial. Examples of trivial coverage from that page include birth certificates, 1-line entries on election ballots, and databases. This is different, it's actual coverage of impact the person had in their field. A single match report would not be enough, but taken together enough of them in independent reliable sources can fulfill WP:BASIC.
  
  We can see the logic behind WP:BASIC. 100 online database entries about an actor appearing in bit parts in film do not add together to create SIGCOV. 100 published match reports about different matches together create significant coverage.
  
  —siro χ o 21:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Are these not just passing mentions, though? If a player has appeared in 100 Premier League matches and is mentioned in 100 different match reports, even if just once or twice per article, would that constitute the SIGCOV necessary for the player to meet GNG? This rule in BASIC is meant for sources with a little more meat on them, because imagine how many athletes have been mentioned in a couple of match reports over the years. That just cannot the intent. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think passing mention would be a mention that was just "Tjep Hoedemakers said XYZ" because then the coverage is not about the subject, but actually about the statement. In these cases it's "short" coverage, but it's specifically about the subject.
    
    It's a balance. I fully agree that just a couple match reports would not constitute SIGCOV, nor would just being on the roster for 100 box scores (i.e db-entry-style trivial coverage). But I fully believe having your play briefly described in 100 independent match reports of high-level international play (or Premier League play, etc) would be enough. Where the balance lies is up to us to determine. It's fine for us to disagree about this specific subject.
    
    And if it helps, as I noted in my original !vote, I'm not going fully on count of match reports or anything, either. In this case the 3rd place finish in a major international competition is a sign of notability, and finding a significant number of match reports describing the player's play confirms it for me. —siro χ o 22:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose we have found the point where we do not fully agree. Regardless, I am happy to go with the consensus. Cheers! JTtheOG (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of coverage in Dutch which appears to satisfy GNG. [44] [45] [46] [47] SportingFlyer T·C 13:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The first two are clearly not independent, the third is a video of a goal he scored, and the fourth is a routine match report with one mention of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Many sources have been identified. Would you mind specifying which would be the top two or three? JTtheOG (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until now there are three keeps under this nomination. One corrected from weak keep. Wikipedia suffers from excessive AfDs. People nominate WAY too much. This pulls valuable resources away from the article space. Starting a discussion with each user, who does not subscribe to your opinion, taken into full account after closely studying the intro and as many other relevant facts as possible, does not improve this situation. To put it mildly. WP:BLUDGEON advises against this. gidonb (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply; I acknowledge your point. I usually don't comment on my own AfDs, nor should I. At the same time, many (most?) SNGs were deprecated, leaving thousands of sports articles which no longer meet WP's notability requirements. In lieu of mass deletions which obviously would not work, individual nominations are the only recourse to address this disparity. The bundling of mentions in match reports in this specific case just seems like such a stretch from the intent of the rule, IMO, but I digress. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 23:38, 21 July 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!} 03:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tridhya Tech Limited[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

That age-old story, sent to draft by NPP and banged right back into mainspace, this Indian technology company does not pass WP:GNG; WP:NCORP and has no enduring notability - WP:SERIESA also applies. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Gujarat. AllyD (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on an IT Services firm, supported largely by press items about some longstanding employees being given company cars. (For context, the Mint item lists other companies which have done the same.) There is also text and announcement-based coverage of takeovers of a couple of other IT Services / web development firms, which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, as does the current IPO. A company going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence demonstrating attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:49, 17 July 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 Ira Losco. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fejn Stahbejtli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2009, and a quick search doesn't reveal any suitable sources. Seems to fail WP:NSINGLE. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, Music, and Malta. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ira Losco: Found no additional coverage. If a source could be found for that contest win then that would be useful to include in her article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ira Losco. No indication of being notable. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I've found a source for the contest win but I don't think that is sufficient for NSONG - it seems to be a relatively minor Maltese contest. WJ94 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WJ94 could you still add that to the artist's article so this song is at least mentioned in there once? Even if the contest itself isn't notable, her winning it is worth at least a sentence. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere I've added it to her list of awards and nominations. WJ94 (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do, thanks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:36, 17 July 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.‎. Although the article has already been greatly expanded since its condition when it was nominated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Niceski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a player in the Australian women's soccer league. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like her main claim to notability is founding this business called MIND. She has an interview featured in March 2022 of MOVE magazine, however, I am concerned about the note at the bottom If you would like us to include articles, interviews or reviews, please contact the ESSA Marketing team. Typically, interviews are not considered to be WP:SIGCOV unless they contain independent analysis from the interviewer, given recent AfD consensus. Given that Niceski likely contacted the marketing team to arrange the interview, I would be reluctant to use it as evidence of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/draftify – Notability in coverage, if any, is likely going to be established in offline sources considering the timeframe of her career. NPL Victoria golden boot, minor premiership, and championship grand final goalscoring winner likely has some coverage, but if it's online it's either paywalled or archived. Would prefer to draftify to see if I can find some; worst case, six months from now it's deleted anyway. -Socccc (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to go with draftifying to buy more time for people to find sources, if they do indeed exist. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Socccc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:18, 23 July 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 List of Criminal Minds characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Blake (Criminal Minds)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't use any sources, a quick Google search doesn't give sources that prove notability to the character. Spinixster (chat!) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Criminal Minds characters. No sources, no hint of notability in the article, pure WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG and WP:V. This level of 'cruft can be safely WP:PRODed IMHO (nom, please consider this in the future and bring here only ones which have been deprodded or look better). - @Spinixster

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus I would PROD it, but last time I did it on another article, someone quickly deprodded it and asked me to bring it to AFD, so just to be safe in case I am horribly wrong, I brought it to AFD. Spinixster (chat!) 06:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinixster It can happen, certainly. I'd PROD anyway (as the last serial deprodded I am familiar with got topic banned from deletions and I am not aware of anyone new causing problems). If you aren't, I recommend using Twinkle with prod log function, handy for checking after a while what got deprodded and why and if necessary, bringing it to AfD without risking forgetting stuff. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per Piotrus. Lacking in reliable independent coverage to pass WP:V, let alone WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:43, 20 July 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza (film series)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The point of this article is pointless: Each film starts with a fresh story unrelated with the preceding film's story. However, the theme and the pace remains the same. This is not a film franchise (most have 3+ films). This article does not add anything that is not on Pizza (2012 film) and Pizza II: Villa. The box office performance is not significant like K.G.F (film series). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun and Frustration. DareshMohan (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination due to the news of the release of the third film in four days. DareshMohan (talk) 19:30, 23 July 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 03:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Burn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not use any sources; a quick Google search does not give sources that prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 03:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 03:36, 17 July 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 French Valley Airport. The keeps did offer solid arguments, however ones that were largely refuted by the merge camp.

detailed close
The merge arguments were mainly WP:ROTM and WP:AIRCRASH. The keeps refuted it was uncertain if this would have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and that AIRCRASH was a local consensus of WP Aviation. That last point was refuted with the fact that this AfD is just as much a local consensus, and in lack of a global consensus, local ones should be considered.

And, to finish this close, a reminder that the article can always be restored from the history if continued coverage happens. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Murrieta plane crash[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another tragic but WP:RUNOFTHEMILL crash of a small general aviation aircraft that attracted substantial WP:BREAKING coverage because it happened during a slow news cycle, but seems unlikely to have any WP:LASTING impact, as it involved no Wikinotable people and occurred during a missed approach in poor visibility—routine circumstances for a multiple-fatality GA accident. Per longstanding consensus in the WP:AVIATION community, this accident is not notable and can be adequately summarized in the article about the intended destination, the French Valley Airport. Carguychris (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Carguychris (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently we don't know if this topic will meet WP:PERSISTENCE, so given the current state of things it's better to preserve the verifiable information editors have worked on, so I do not recommend deletion. To avoid the possible need for a future AfD, perhaps a merge to French Valley Airport per what seems to be a reasonable long-lived essay at WP:AIRCRASH. The only part of that essay I fundamentally disagree with is that it shouldn't be cited here. AfD needs to be a reflection of Wikipedia's broader consensus, and there's a lot of good discussion in the talk page there that editors here can reference. If the subject does end up meeting WP:PERSISTENCE it can be split back out when an editor chooses to expand it. —siro χ o 22:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge Little notability in the event and per WP:AIRCRASH, this crash shouldn't have an article. This article should be merged into French Valley Airport and could be mentioned in Cessna Citation II#Accidents and incidents. If there is persistent coverage of this event in the future and there is significant changes, then this article can be restored. Still a bit too soon for me to make a conclusive decision. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. Your points on notability are valid, and very likely this crash is not notable and will not merit an article, but why not wait a week or two, allow it to exist so further information can be added to a place, and then decide whether to delete and merge it back into the other relevant articles? Also, why did you delete the mention in Cessna Citation II#Accidents and incidents in the first place? I understand you are AfDing the article written about it, and intend to include it in the airport article, but there is no reason to remove the information about the crash from that section on the airplane model in the interim period. Criticalus (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. Right now we don't know if it will have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE so we should wait and see. Note that any local consensus by the WP:AVIATION community is irrelevant in this discussion as it is, well, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Alvaldi (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Tragic incident, but crashes of small planes aren't that rare. Article does not really substantiate why in particular this crash is more notable then any other with this death number. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i believe this achieves notabiluty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete General aviation plane crashes occur frequently, and this has already fallen out of the news cycle. No issue with an ATD, but should not have a stand alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to airport per RandomInfinity17. If not merged, I'd say keep for now per WP:RAPID. A business jet crash is a bit out of the ordinary, but on the whole I'm just not seeing any likely pathway to larger significance here, so I don't really think we need to stand on ceremony and might as well just merge it now. But keeping this as a separate article for a while, just in case, also seems fine.
(While it's unlikely to affect the outcome of this discussion, since LOCALCONSENSUS was raised above I'll state for the record that I don't see any way that a small group of randos like ourselves on AFD can be considered to occupy a higher level of consensus than a longstanding Wikiproject; while I am not a great fan of the kritarchy in general, I think the Arbcom statement linked from WP:CONLEVEL says it well: on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:56, 19 July 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!} 03:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lindner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Maybe there are mentions in German sources I missed, but the most I found were mentions on the German Football Association website similar to the ones already in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Germany. JTtheOG (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - Sportfrauen.net has a good piece on Lindner. I need to look some more. Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search. Other than the sportfrauen.net article linked above, I can't find any SIGCOV. There is a fairly decent piece from the DFB that is linked in the article, but it is not an independent source and doesn't count toward notability. Local newspapers provide no help (pnn.de and lr-online.de only have match reports and contract announcements). Unfortunately, I think the lack of coverage is to be expected for a player who only once played in more than half of her club's Bundesliga matches (during 2016–17). Jogurney (talk) 17:23, 19 July 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!} 02:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jithender Yadagiri[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find a single source in English or Telugu (జితేందర్ యాదగిరి). He is also known as Jitender Y. All sources are passing mentions.

Point of confusion: If Veduka was his second film, why does this source [48] call the film his debut? DareshMohan (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass as per WP:DIRECTOR, the editor may provide more reliable sources to verify notability . DSN18 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 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 02:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K30MF-D[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct LPTV; fails WP:GNG; some info belongs in other articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arkansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: About the only thing that sets this apart from many of the other run-of-the-mill short-lived defunct HC2/Innovate LPTVs (though the "defunct" status is a bit of a red herring — notability is not temporary when there is notability to speak of) was that potential MyNetworkTV affiliation — but absent any substantial sourcing (that was only sourced to their own, not always updated well, affiliate list, and most of the other sources in this article are about other subjects and don't count for notability), that counts for very little (MyNetworkTV isn't even much of a "network", anyway). Much of the article has always tried to peer into the crystal ball — we don't allow that, and there's probably some OR and synthesis somewhere in there too. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources in article are listings, none provide any in-depth coverage. Also found no sources online that meet WP:GNG. ARandomName123 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 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. A list of his clients is not important, Wikipedia asks to see significant coverage of the article subject himself to determine that he is notable enough for a stand-alone article. If he has participated high-profile cases, he can be mentioned in those articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip P. DiLucente[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTPROMO: WP:BEFORE suggests subject does not meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG —siro χ o 01:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. The only sources that I found mentioning him are just stating he's the defense attorney. No WP:SIGCOV. APK whisper in my ear 05:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the article should not be deleted, and that Phillip P. DiLucente meets WP:BIO/WP:GNG criteria. While it's true some sources only mention him as the defense attorney, several others offer significant coverage. He has represented high-profile clients in notable cases^[1]^[2]^[3]. He has also received an award voted by the readers of a local paper^[4], indicating notability beyond his role as an attorney. I have revised the article to remove any potential promotional language and provided a more neutral tone. I suggest that the article be improved rather than deleted. Cbloise242 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting "404 - Page Not Found" for the Post Gazette links. But the titles suggest it's not specifically about DiLucente. Please read WP:SIGCOV. APK whisper in my ear 10:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, okay, allow me to address those issues. Thanks for your attention Cbloise242 (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to the best of my knowledge I have addressed those issues. Please let me know if I am mistaken. Thank you for your time. Cbloise242 (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just straight up promotional, and the sourcing doesn't pass GNG either. All of the articles appear to be about cases he's been in just looking at the headlines, and not about significant coverage of him. If kept, it reads promotionally enough that it should be TNT'd and re-created. SportingFlyer T·C 13:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The linked articles in this discussion also do not pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 21:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Former Pittsburgh police officer sexual assault hearing". www.post-gazette.com.
^ "Former Allegheny County councilman charged with DUI". triblive.com.
^ "Former West Mifflin school board member pleads guilty to theft charges". www.post-gazette.com.
^ "Best Attorney". www.pghcitypaper.com.

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. Deleted by patrolling admin per WP:G5 (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Dammy Pas[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was bought to AfD less than a month ago, nothing seems to have changed in that time, sources are promotional. Last AfD is here [49] Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G4, G11.-KH-1 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are references, but the entire page needs to be nuked and possibly rewritten in a non-promotional tone. APK whisper in my ear 05:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete, speediable per A7/G4/G11, but happy to let the AfD run if needed. No evidence of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I CSD'd the article as a G5. Seems the afd closer script I installed isn't playing nice with Vector22, and I'm short on time so I'd appreciate if someone would be so kind as to wrap this up. Thanks a ton. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 17 July 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.

I'm closing this as Soft Delete in case this actor's career takes off one day in the future. Currently, no, they don't meet our notability standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Trujillo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only finding bit parts for this actress, nothing for wikipedia. No sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. I see mentions in outlets like EFE and Infobae, but no WP:SIGCOV. APK whisper in my ear 05:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:57, 21 July 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 per WP:G5 - the author is a CU-confirmed sock, very little input from anyone else - no need for other contributors to spend time on this. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Todd (businessman)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business person, sourcing is scant and all in relation to his wife. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability here seems to hinge on WP:NACTOR, but I don't know enough about the 2 or 3 realty shows he has more than 1 appearance on to say one way or the other. Agree BIO is otherwise not met. —siro χ o 02:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator is currently the subject of an SPI; the sockmaster was responsible for an earlier copy of this page which was deleted at the 1st AfD, and another attempt from another sock that got draftified to Draft:Ken Todd (restaurateur). Belbury (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 17 July 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. Should this game ever get mainstream coverage, please consider recreating article in Draft space. But until it receives more media or academic attention, it can't be present in the main space of the project according to Wikipedia guidelines on notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ballers VR[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable video game, has been out for a year and nothing found in RS, not really sourced anywhere that I can see. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is a notable game. I'm a developer for the game can say definitely it's very well known especially on TikTok. It has over 100M views there. It was released in August 2021 which is just about two years ago.

Release date: https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/3947713001963656/

Views / popularity: https://www.tiktok.com/search?q=%23bigballersvr&t=1689558600364

Additional Sources:

- https://www.realityremake.com/articles/3-best-vr-basketball-games-on-the-oculus-quest-2

- One of the top games on App Lab Game List: https://applabgamelist.com/Best

- https://bigballersvr.com/blog/big-ballers-vr-frequently-asked-questions

- https://bigballersvr.com/blog/the-future-of-vr-basketball QuaintCow (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional page created by the Developer. Zero reliable sources presented by the developer. Zero hits at all on WP:VG/S's reliable source search. Not listed in any of the accepted review aggregators and no reviews available that route either. -- ferret (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a promotional page. I've written factual information in a neutral manner. There's a severe shortage of VR game articles in general. Probably for this exact reason of factual information getting deleted regularly. Many games go viral on closed social platforms. Wikipedia brings this information to the open and public. Why are we preventing that from happening? Please reconsider requesting a deletion. QuaintCow (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because we aren't here to promote your product, we only consider items that have been covered in other reliable media sources. Oaktree b (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for reviews of the game in the likes of PCMag, Cnet, Common Sense Media, the New York Times and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, this article doesn't have coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. APK whisper in my ear 05:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game is not notable with its current press coverage, which is borderline non existent. The Dev appears to be active and passionate, given their commentary here, and I wish them luck, but until media pop up like reviews and otherwise dedicated articles about the game itself, and not just as a mention in a "top 5" listicle, it's not suited for wikipedia in its current form. Tytrox (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have reiterated, it lacks independent coverage. All the best to the developer, who has done the right thing in declaring an interest. Sadly, 'notability' as a general concept isn't the same as the notion of 'notability' as an editorial standard used in Wikipedia, and even if it is played and enjoyed by people, this article does fall very short of having reliable, independent secondary coverage. Vrxces (talk) 00:27, 19 July 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 with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Lazarus Child[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a link from the Calgary Herald via Newspapers.com. Needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find a link from Screen International. I’d be willing to withdraw if anyone can please find a review on this film from a reliable source. The Film Creator (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Review at CineMagazine [50] DonaldD23 talk to me 02:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, User:Donaldd23. I knew you’d rescue this article. I speedy withdraw this nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 02:14, 17 July 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!} 00:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Célestin Habonimana[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nine appearances for the Burundi national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 July 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!} 00:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moussa Ndikumana[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One appearance for the Burundi national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 July 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!} 00:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Hakizimana[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two appearances for the Burundi national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 July 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!} 00:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moussa Muryango[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Three official appearances for the Burundi national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 July 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 01:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.CSO[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a homebrew developer-created file type. Needless to say, I am not convinced this file type is notable. It appears to be one of those "fly under the radar" type articles due to its sheer obscurity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nowhere near meeting the WP:GNG. This is an extremely niche tech subject that simply has not, and will not, ever receive mainstream coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some talk of the format on Microsoft forums, but nothing else we can use for sourcing. Nothing found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 17 July 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 Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk B. Paloutzian[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG as an unsuccessful nominee for a federal judgeship. Let'srun (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Let'srun (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E, no other secondary/independent/reliable/sigcov sources. —siro χ o 01:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I don't see any coverage other than the nomination accouncement. APK whisper in my ear 06:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:BLP1E; no coverage in reliable sources beyond WP:ROUTINE. WJ94 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal: Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations. We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns. BD2412 T 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming there is SIGCOV of that topic I'm fine with that (i.e. as long as it meets something like WP:NLIST. Closing admin might consider draftifying/userfying such articles to that end. There is a similar article at Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies but I think it serves a different purpose, but it may fit. —siro χ o 21:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect as well. —siro χ o 19:12, 18 July 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.

[1] "Former Pittsburgh police officer sexual assault hearing". www.post-gazette.com.

[2] "Former Allegheny County councilman charged with DUI". triblive.com.

[3] "Former West Mifflin school board member pleads guilty to theft charges". www.post-gazette.com.

[4] "Best Attorney". www.pghcitypaper.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]