Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 24	July 26 >

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 merge‎ to UCLA Bruins#Team colors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA Blue[edit]

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

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

All current sources are either primary or (for True Blue) student media/brief non-SIGCOV mentions, and a WP:BEFORE search has turned up only debatably SIGCOV blog coverage and non-SIGCOV mentions. Overall, I don't think they pass WP:GNG. To the extent there's anything to salvage, WP:PAGEDECIDE comes into play — the university's coloring is discussed at University of California, Los Angeles (albeit out of date, not reflecting that both athletics and non-athletics now use UCLA Blue), so it could be discussed there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Advertising, Education, and California. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge both to ~~University of California, Los Angeles § Athletics~~UCLA Bruins § Team colors. UCLA Blue is used beyond just athletics, but it's still probably best discussed there alongside True Blue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)^{Updated preferred merge target per Siroxo 01:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)}[reply]
Blog comment The nomiation questions this blog, but it is from the Los Angeles Daily News, and WP:NEWSBLOGS are generally considered reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba, that's fair; I saw the closing post but missed that it had a paper behind it. It's still hyperlocal and quite short, though, so I don't think it moves us much closer to anything like GNG. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a related note, there also similar pages under Category:School colors.—Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there's a bunch of other stuff, and I've made several related nominations for them here, here, and here. I tagged Carolina blue for notability, as it's a little more borderline. There are also a bunch of entries that probably don't belong at list of shades of blue and other color shade lists as a result of past content that was inappropriately merged rather than deleted (e.g. here; no one outside of Brandeis' PR department has ever used "Brandeis blue"). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Other stuff arguments can go both ways, which is why I just noted the category and left it at that.—Bagumba (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UCLA Bruins#Team colors, which should be a more precise merge target than the main UCLA article. —siro χ o 01:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UCLA Bruins#Team colors, per those above. BD2412 T 01:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UCLA Bruins#Team colors.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 1 August 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 Apple Inc.#Senior management. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine L. Adams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG as a lawyer. Only sources discussing the subject were WP:ROUTINE for lawyers. Let'srun (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that after reading the previous Afd, only the law.com source seems to meet the secondary source requirements. Let'srun (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apple Inc., where she is listed by name. Does not seem to meet WP:BASIC. —siro χ o 01:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Inc. Mostly run-of-the-mill information, including coverage directly related to the subject and nothing substantial enough to meet WP:BASIC. No awards/recognition that is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. It would be best to redirect because she is mentioned in Apple Inc. The Night Watch (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Inc.#Senior management where she is listed. Per nom, Siroxo, and The Night Watch, not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Inc.#Senior management.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Counter[edit]

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

Delete This article has been unsourced for at least half a decade, and there has been no attempt to add real citations to it during the entirety of that time. The way the article described this controversial figure across many paragraphs indicated that it was likely taken directly from a publicist or a family-written obituary. Based on the fact that the current representative of the AMPTP, an industry trade group, doesn't have a Wikipedia page, there is no reason to believe Counter meets any criteria for notability. No notability has been established on any grounds, and there is nothing of merit that comes only from this page. PickleG13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forget the lack of citations, I just don't think he passes WP:GNG. For anyone else looking at this, it does look like the article used to be much longer and then got cut down, but even the longer version was mostly uncited. Kalethan (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Keep, although it will take a bit of work. I have added two LA times articles to the article, both of which are long enough to be significant. However, since both are by the same writer, I went further and have found the following citations:

“Strike-Stalled Agents Flip for Facebook: Hey, Let’s ‘Poke’ Nick Counter!” The New York Observer (New York, NY), 18 Dec. 2007. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgin&AN=edsgcl.172593989&scope=site.
Robb, David. “Nick Counter Paints Grim Picture of Film Industry Future; Implies Teetering on Economic Disaster.” Variety, vol. 321, Oct. 1985, p. 3. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.3996380&scope=site.
Robb, David. “Straight Shooter’s Style Was Right on Nose.” Hollywood Reporter, vol. 412, no. 12, Nov. 2009, p. 22. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgsr&AN=edsgcl.213084111&scope=site.
Diorio, Carl. “Studios Show Some Flexibility. (Cover Story).” Hollywood Reporter -- International Edition, vol. 400, no. 56, Oct. 2007, pp. 1–65. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=27490703&scope=site.

That's a sampling, and his name comes up in more articles about Hollywood and labor. There is enough here, I assume, to fill out the entry. Lamona (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the LA Times articles added as references and the sources above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be enough to pass GNG [[1]] User:Let'srun 00:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:BASIC or GNG. Sometimes notability only appears after death, but that does not mean they are only notable for that. If needed, an ATD is a redirect to 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike is appropriate as the subject is quoted in that article. —siro χ o 01:30, 26 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!} 23:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanna Dionicio[edit]

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was the most I dug up. JTtheOG (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Dominican Republic, and Connecticut. JTtheOG (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 26 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 with a very strong suggestion that this goes through AfC before returning given protracted sourcing issues. Star Mississippi 02:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project 18[edit]

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

Pure speculation by military fans in India, sourced only to two definitely not RS fansites (defenceview.in and theigmp.org, neither of which provides a source for what they write, or even the name of the author) and an official PDF that only says that India at some time in the future would like to build 5-10 new destroyers, but with no other details. So everything in the article is just pure speculation, just like previous attempts to create an article about future "super duper best in the world ever" destroyers for the Indian Navy (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project 18-class destroyer...). When and if India comes up with a new destroyer, and official information from reliable sources becomes available, it could be worthy of an article, but as it is it's just military fancruft. Drachentöter001 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Drachentöter001 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft seems to be the best choice. It's almost a thing, but not quite yet. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absent solid sources (@Flyhigh2020: please stop adding forum threads as references; user-generated content is not helpful). I'd be amenable to drafitying per Oaktree above, but in any case I can't really see a way for this to stay in article space based on the identified sources. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make one thing clear first, unlike Developed Nations in the West, Critical Military R&D in India is still handled by Government Organisations (DRDO) & DPSUs (BEL, HAL, BDL). And since India is a Developing Nation, Public Welfare, Healthcare & Infrastructure development comes first & foremost in the priority of the government. PR for Defence R&D of a product that will be developed 5-10 years down the line comes last. The current ISRO Chairman confirmed the same in a recent YouTube interview with Gareeb Scientist :

https :// youtu . be/SO06qo6UyBY

As such, we have no option but to depend heavily on insider scoops. Many reputed websites like Livefist, Alpha Defence & IDRW (Except for the Opinion Articles written by Guest Writers) have reliable links inside these organisations & provide trustworthy information on these topics. I have even seen DRDO mentioning such articles in many of their documents. One such document referers to the NGD :

https :// www .google . com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https :// www .drdo . gov . in/sites/default/files/drdo-news-documents/NPC21July2022 . pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJyahZ2AAxV4T2wGHTcQCzY4FBAWegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2_IqG9Kilu-ROdLvVPtUb7

If I am correct, this Wikipedia page was created only after the official handle of the Indian Navy released a clipping in Twitter on their Next-gen Combat Management System. That video featured warships so large that they can't be anything but the initial (yet official) renders of the NGD :

https://twitter.com/IndiannavyMedia/status/1580814200347426817?s=20

All the recent articles & videos you'll come accross in the internet on the P-18 NGD are centred around analysing this very video released by the Indian Navy :

1) https :// youtu . be/mOEx16qqtM8

2) https :// youtu . be/eLhjtqjfGvE

3)https :// youtu . be/YMXxkaOg0dI

Please remove the spaces I placed in th links since Wikipedia for some weird reasons won't let me post them. I will rest my case here, peace. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The video you linked to, and that the entire article obviously is based on, is about a future "Combat Management System" showing images of generic modern destroyers, not about a next generation Project 18-destroyer for the Indian Navy, making everything in the article pure speculation. Which is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia's rules (see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR), which are the same for everyone, and not different sets of rules for "Developed Western Nations" and "Developing Nations". If there are no reliable sources there should be no article. Period. Drachentöter001 (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, we have our own set of reliable sources and we are happy with them. Multiple RFIs have been floated (127mm Naval Gun) & Critical Components made (LRMFR, HSTDV, AD-1, AD-2), like pieces of a puzzle coming together.

But if Wikipedia is run by it's own sets of rules and regulations, and the word 'Reliable' is defined differently, any article that violates them must be put to the Trash Bin.

In a few years, official data on this project will come and someone will have to create the exact same page from scratch. I don't really care about it that since I won't be editing on this platform anymore for multiple of it's inherent issues (some of which aren't related to this).

But still it would've been better if, instead of deleting it outright, all the sources added in this page were deleted and "This Page Contains Unverified Information" tag was added on top.

But I guess that that can't be done according to the rules, so delete it without any further delay. If Wikipedia can't accept it, we have no problems whatsoever. Both NGF & NGD will still happen anyway. Cheers ! Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weak Draft. At present it has almost zero properly referenced content, with which it would be reduced to a single sentence, which could be based on this] and this. All the rest is speculation and synthesis, failing both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH. Much is predicated on an unsupported assumption that the ship shape, used to illustrate something else in an Indian Navy video, must be Project 18. Proper maintenance of Future of the Indian Navy will indicate when an article can emerge, and what its content can be. Davidships (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a second thought, I agree.

As you rightly deduced, this page should be deleted as soon as possible. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:21, 20 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!} 23:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://news.usni.org/2022/07/20/indian-navy-expanding-to-meet-china-threat-better-team-with-allies

A new next-generation destroyer, sometimes dubbed Project 18, is expected to be much larger and provide a further jump in technology by employing directed energy weapons, high-power sensors, longer-range cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles. Conceptual studies are still underway, but there will be more Indian-built content in the newer classes than in prior ones. Mifiin (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It won't change anything, but since someone relisted it, I am providing another link for the generosity.

The Indian Navy has allotted adequate funds in the R&D for the NGD, so that it has the latest sensors & can match the weapon density of the PLAN Type-55.

https://delhidefencereview.com/2023/02/25/indian-navy-has-been-allotted-adequate-funds-for-indigenous-rd-and-modernization-vice-chief-of-naval-staff/ Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 14:05, 31 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 Tufts University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tufts Blue[edit]

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

Another article on a color associated with a university that appears to have no secondary sourcing available. Currently sourced only to Tufts' brand identity guide. Oxford Blue this is not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tufts University as nom. (There's currently Shades of blue § Tufts blue, but given the lack of sourcing, I think that section should be removed.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Advertising, Education, and Massachusetts. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also related AfDs for UCLA Blue, BISU Visual Identity, and RISD Blue. I tagged Carolina blue for notability, as it's a little more borderline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as a likely colloquial term. The primary source provided doesn't fully support this article, and a more modern version eg [2] does not either. Without any sourcing a merge of any kind seems inappropriate. —siro χ o 01:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as above. Never mind without sourcing, what kind of actual content is there to merge? That the university's marketing department has its own color codes for the shade of blue they prefer? Heck, I used to live in Medford, and I've never heard this turn of phrase. Ravenswing 04:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 1 August 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 Ivory Coast women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priscille Kreto[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Ivory Coast women's international footballers. The subject has made at least one appearance for the Ivory Coast women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Ivory Coast. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 19:05, 26 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!} 22:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Fabulous International 2023[edit]

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

I'm also including the following in this nomination for the same reason, non-notable event, before only gives social media pages and videos of the event itself:

Miss Fabulous International 2022

Creator has also tagged these with notability issues. Karnataka (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Karnataka (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - I can't find any WP:RS coverage to actually build an article from and even the social media coverage is very weak. The event clearly only reaches a very small audience. If Miss Fabulous International survives AfD then these can be redirected there as an WP:ATD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Spiderone and Oaktree b - Considering that this is a Thailand pageant - was a search in the Thai language done before nominating or discussing this pageant? To understand why this is an issue, try searching for Tom Brady in the Konkani language. Here are the results that show up - (https://www.google.com/search?q=%E0%A4%9F%E0%A5%89%E0%A4%AE+%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%85%E0%A4%A1%E0%A5%80+%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A3%E0%A5%80+%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8). If I had only searched him in Kokani, he would not pass an AfD test! Extra consideration needs to be taken when nominating subjects that are not English language topics as issues like this seem to happen daily.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There still are no sources we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article Chuy Daily seems to conflate Miss Fabulous International Thailand with Miss Fabulous International. Are they both the same? If so, we should look at redirecting and/or merging some of these articles. I'm not seeing enough coverage in Thai for us to have individual articles for each annual edition of the event. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @KatoKungLee: actually, that was a search for "टॉम ब्रॅडी हांणी केला", or "Tom Brady has done it" in Konkani. A search for just "Tom Brady" in Konkani, "टॉम ब्रॅडी", returns useful sources in English, Marathi and Italian: [3].

Searching for Miss Fabulous International in Thai ("มิสแฟบิวลัสอินเตอร์เนชันแนล") I can't see significant coverage of the 2023 event in reliable sources. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KatoKungLee and 2A00...: The correct search term to use would be the English one, since it's an English name and what the event is referred by. The above suggested Thai search term is not helpful because there isn't a standard spelling used to transcribe the name into Thai. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources in any language are found. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 27 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 Beijing International Studies University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BISU Visual Identity[edit]

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

A 2013 article sourced entirely to primary sources. We tend to have articles on university colors only for those with a significant history and influence (e.g. Oxford Blue (colour)), which is unlikely to be the case for a system introduced in 2003. I was unable to find any secondary sources, although perhaps someone who speaks Chinese could confirm. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beijing International Studies University as nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Advertising, Education, and China. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal merge to above target, perhaps a single sentence would be the right amount given reliance on primary sources. —siro χ o 01:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also related AfDs for UCLA Blue, Tufts Blue, and RISD Blue. I tagged Carolina blue for notability, as it's a little more borderline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 1 August 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!} 22:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Commission on Police Reform[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Articles relies only on academic papers, which judging by the articles do not refer specifically to the reform, but to police reform in general. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads more like a newspaper or a news article. Kaseng55 (talk) 02:44, 30 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!} 22:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Kapanda[edit]

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

The subject has made at least nine appearances for the Malawi women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 26 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 Malta women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keoney Demicoli[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Malta women's international footballers. The subject has made at least four appearances for the Malta women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Malta. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 19:05, 26 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 Malta women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Micallef[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Malta women's international footballers. The subject has made at least one appearance for the Malta women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Malta. JTtheOG (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malta women's international footballers - I created this article at a time when an international cap made you immune to deletion but I can't find anything to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 19:04, 26 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!} 20:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isobell Shyrie[edit]

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

Nothing for notability, a few lines in a non-RS used (red per source bot). Not seeing GNG met, nor NBIO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Magic, and Scotland. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there appears to be some variation in spelling for her name. Found some sources for Isobel (single L) Shyrie - [4][5][6]. Also some for "Issobell Syrie" (gaelic?) [7]. Makes for a weak-ish case for WP:GNG. Maybe better to merge/redirect to Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1661–62.-KH-1 (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have added refs which show her as one of Guthrie's alleged colleagues. PamD 08:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She comes under WP:VICTIM and given the amount of scholarly work going on at present about Scottish witchcraft, it would be premature to delete. MsJoat (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources are reliable 1, 2, 3 Charsaddian (talk) 19:54, 26 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!} 20:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristjan Kangro[edit]

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

Non-notable financial person, reads like a resume with routine things happening. Nothing substantive for sourcing beyond routine business items. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Estonia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep For most of you this source may be behind a paywall, but it's a long article of the person - in Estonia's (probably) most respected newspaper, atleast in investigative journalism. I Googled and found plenty of other sources. Passes WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the person has significant media coverage in reputable Estonian media and rather good, not very routine coverage in international outlets like CNBC connected to person's fintech activity with sustainable amounts raised in crowdfunding campaigns.George Greyson (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a good number of decent in-depth articles that could be used as sources: Eesti Ekspress, Äripäev, Äripäev, Ärileht, Ärileht, Ärileht, Majandus Postimees, etc. Meets the criteria of WP:BIO. ExRat (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability and deep coverage in multiple reliable sources. I have also found and added to the page another in-depth reportage on the person's biography from Äripäev. Additionally, I've included a source discussing Kangro's SOCKme venture, which was recognized as the best student startup in the Nordics at one point. BoraVoro (talk) 14:45, 1 August 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!} 20:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu "Boots" Di Pilla[edit]

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

Non-notable musical act. No sourcing, even in .fr websites, only CoreandCO and MusicWaves, neither of which is RS. Not meeting notability requriements. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mostly a session hand and temporary fill-in singer who may or may not be making a living bouncing around recordings for various producers, and sometimes temporarily joining bands that open shows for other bands that are themselves non-notable. His guest appearances in other people's songs can be found in the usual streaming and social media services but he has no significant coverage in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC BIO. Citations are mostly social media and wiki pages.Naomijeans (talk) 17:52, 28 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 Polarity (international relations). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second superpower[edit]

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

This is not a coherent concept. It's a term that some people and sources have used, but it has no sustained coverage or coherent meaning. The lead describes it as an anti-Iraq War protest movement (with sourcing from the early 2000s), but then the main body also just uses it to refer to states such as China and Russia. There is no reason why this merits a standalone article. It's so confusing that it probably fails WP:DUE for inclusion in Superpower or Great power. Thenightaway (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The article is confusing, horribly unfocused, under-cited, and seems to conflate a few unrelated social movements as nom points out. But the Moore essay had responses in RS, at least, and there does seem to have been enough media attention to support an article (I don't know if reference 1 counts as RS or not because it's "analysis", but the Nation piece seems legit and I suppose the Greenpeace article might make the cut). An awful lot of work and trimming is needed, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit to being completely unfamiliar with this concept. That said, doesn't the sourcing suggests that this a rather contained media debate in 2003–2004 which did not have any sustained attention or importance? Do scholars of social movements, protests and NGOs still use this concept in any meaningful way? A Google Search and Google Scholar search does not show significant coverage in the last five years. Thenightaway (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SYN concerns here - a grab bag of different uses can't be cobbled together into a unified article. I would also be OK with a redirect to Polarity (international relations), which discusses bipolarity. Neutrality^talk 17:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is WP:SYN and WP:FORK of Polarity (international relations). My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 30 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 Rhode Island School of Design. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RISD Blue[edit]

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

This article is about the school color of the Rhode Island School of Design. It was created in 2022 shortly after the color was adopted during a rebranding initiative, and was passed through NPP by WaddlesJP13 in what looks to me like an extremely questionable call. The only reference is to a RISD page, and the only media coverage I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was this article from The Brown Daily Herald, which is a reliable student publication but whose coverage does not count toward notability given its hyperlocal scope, and in any case is not SIGCOV as the article devotes only a single short paragraph to the color. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rhode Island School of Design as nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Advertising, and Education. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I find the same, single source. For what it is, Merge the one sentence into the article about the school and be done with it. Or redirect, I'm not fussed about either choice, but this isn't at GNG.
Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added here, and it's already present in the infobox. The athletics section is a bit of an odd fit, since the color is used beyond just athletics — it's the best option available as it discusses the mascot, a related topic, but I could just as easily be satisfied with no mention beyond the infobox. (School colors and logos are that rare element that I find due for the infobox but unneeded in the body.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above makes sense to me (WP:GNG/WP:NOPAGE). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also related AfDs for UCLA Blue, Tufts Blue, and BISU Visual Identity. I tagged Carolina blue for notability, as it's a little more borderline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal merge (which may already be complete per above commments which would effectively mean a redirect at this point). —siro χ o 01:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 1 August 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!} 18:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

8 (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Unreleased since 2018. Will never release and is only notable if released. Should have included it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puthiya Mugam (unreleased film).

Same reasons for deletion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aayiram Porkasugal. DareshMohan (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because unreleased since 2020.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, fails WP:NFILM for future films, and isn't being updated- for 2nd article 2022 has passed Karnataka (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with what was said above. - OtharLuin (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally once a film has entered principal production it might be notable, but it looks like production stalled five years ago and there isn't enough press to make its development notable. If it ever was released, it might warrant an article.

Delete - This article is prove to fails WP:NF and WP:NFP ; so, it has no right kept on Wikipedia.Kind regards –––ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 15:58, 1 August 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) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Kaminski[edit]

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

Article about semi-pro and amateur football manager whose highest "achievement" was a single-match spell as interim manager of 3. Liga's Stuttgarter Kickers in November 2015. The article fails WP:GNG regardless of there being a lot of routine coverage online (interviews, match reports/previews, transactional coverage, club press releases and conferences) because no reliable, independent sources cover the subject directly and in-depth. The generally unreliable tabloid Bild reported on his 2023 dismissal from semi-pros Kickers Offenbach for allegedly employing highly unusual motivational methods, and many national and local newspapers carried the Bild report (e.g., [8]). I don't believe otherwise reliable sources carrying a tabloid report gets around WP:RS concerns, and the coverage is not sustained (would run afoul of WP:BLP1E). Aside from that incident, the coverage is routine (some examples include [9], [10], [11]. PROD was declined months ago without any effort to address WP:SPORTCRIT. Hopefully, the large amount of routine coverage doesn't lead to a WP:REFBOMB.) Jogurney (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems as if he passes GNG very easily from just the German language page - the article needs expansion, but GNG seems easily met? SportingFlyer T·C 19:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's possible. The de:wiki article includes two club website articles (not independent), a Stuttgarter Zeitung piece (the best coverage I could find) which consists of half of a paragraph on his career (20 Jahre lang arbeitete er bei der Zollfahndung in Hamburg. Der gebürtige Möllner befasste sich als Ermittlungsbeamter mit organisierter Kriminalität. 2003 machte er sein Hobby Fußball zum Beruf. 2005 erwarb er die DFB-Fußball-Lehrer-Lizenz. 2006 holte ihn Michael Henke als Co-Trainer zum 1. FC Saarbrücken, später übernahm er selbst den Cheftrainerposten. 2008 ging’s als sportlicher Leiter zur SV Elversberg, 2010 zum FC Homburg – als sportlicher Leiter und Trainer. Erfahrungen als Chefanalytiker und Scout sammelte er 2012/13 unter Trainer Ralph Hasenhüttl beim VfR Aalen. Seine letzte Station vor den Blauen waren die Offenbacher Kickers. Nun kommt ihm bei den Kickers in Stuttgart in einer der schwierigsten Phasen der Vereinsgeschichte eine Schlüsselfunktion zu.), 2 Osthessen News pieces (one that is routine transactional coverage of his hiring by Barockstadt - mostly in the form of reprinting the club's press release and quotes from the subject; and one that is routine transactional coverage of his sacking by Barockstadt mostly consisting of quotes from the club's press release and the subject's public statement to the media), and a Kicker article that has just 2 sentences about Kaminski in what is also routine transasctional coverage. I'll accept that the Stuttgarter Zeitung piece is more than routine coverage, but that doesn't get us to a GNG pass. Can you elaborate on what you're seeing that I cannot? Jogurney (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Stuttgarter Zeitung article and Ost Hessen articles clearly pass GNG to me - there was a press conference and the paper went there to cover it. His firing was a reprint of a press release, but was covered significantly. The Bild re-coverage seems fine as well. All of the routine coverage articles are at least three paragraphs long and are directly on the subject. He's not the most notable manager in history, but there's enough coverage there for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I can't agree that primary coverage like reprinted club press releases and quotes from the subject help in any way to pass GNG, but I'll follow up on your note that Kaminiski's not the most notable manager in history. The Osthessen News articles are about his (very brief) tenure with a Hessenliga club (which competes in a state competition at the amateur 5th tier of German club football); according to transfermarkt most of these matches had attendance ranging from 300-500. The only professional management role Kaminski had was as an interim management for one match in the 3. Liga (for which I can only find a match report; nothing about his role even in the Stuttgart newspapers). So if we use WP:COMMONSENSE, we ought to reject an article about someone with such a minor role in German club football (if for some reason people actually think the GNG is met). Jogurney (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SF. Giant Snowman 19:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. I also found [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], among many many many more German sources from tons of newspapers. Clearly significant figure in German Lowe league football with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:50, 2 August 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!} 18:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 World Junior Wrestling Championships[edit]

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

2023 World Junior Wrestling Championships

This article about a future sports competition does not provide enough information to establish general notability or event notability. The history shows that an article was created in article space and draftified, and then another copy was created in article space again, so there is already a draft. The draft can be left alone for expansion, probably immediately after the competition occurs. A review of the references shows that none of them at this time are independent significant sources. They are either the sports federation's own or database pages or both.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	uww.org	Article about rehosting	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	uww.org	Page that will show results but is now empty	No	Not at this time	Yes	No
3	allsportdb.com	Appears to be a future database page	Yes	Not at this time	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling, Jordan, and Poland. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -draft already exists so no point draftifying per WP:TOOSOON Karnataka (talk) 19:12, 25 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 Camp Ashraf 3. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Tirana camp raid[edit]

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

Propose deletion or merge into Camp Ashraf 3. Per WP:EVENT, unlikely to receive WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DEPTH. Longhornsg (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Longhornsg (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Iran, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per WP:EVENT. Only if reliable sources keep talking about this in the future should an article be created. A summary of the event is there. That summary could be expanded with some material from this article. This article's title should be a redirect to that summary's section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camp Ashraf 3. Long term coverage has not taken place to establish notability, but there is relevant information here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is already the enough references, need to change the keyword for searching, try this one please, and so on... DRIS92 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camp Ashraf 3 per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:37, 1 August 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 Thank You, I'm Sorry. RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Glad We're Friends[edit]

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

Non-notable music album which does not appear to pass WP:NALBUM. Attempted to redirect to Thank You, I'm Sorry, but this was contested. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thank You, I'm Sorry, fails WP:NALBUM Karnataka (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the aforementioned page. The only reference isn't RS. Deckkohl (talk) 12:48, 1 August 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 Portland Thorns FC players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Smithers[edit]

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

The subject made two appearances in the 2020 NWSL Challenge Cup for Portland Thorns FC. It seems she also played for Motor City FC of the Women's Premier Soccer League in 2019 (1). I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even mentioned at 2020 Portland Thorns FC season to be redirected there. Giant Snowman 19:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Portland Thorns FC players as WP:ATD. -Socccc (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 14:07, 1 August 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. After consideration of alternative transliterations, etc., it seems that this battle may have occurred, but it doesn't appear to be notable. RL0919 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Burshek[edit]

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

The article describes a battle which supposedly took place in Albania in 1467. This battle is not mentioned in WP:RS, the location itself doesn't exist in Albania and it's not mentioned in historical sources. There are barely any references to any Büzürşek/Bursek in any source and the term seems to fail even WP:N. Maleschreiber (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Albania. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a problem is that "Burshak" is the article creator's transliteration of the Turkish "Buzurşek" into English. Putting the two online sources through Google Translate yields "Buzursek" but I don't know if Google Translate is reliable for Turkish names of Albanian places. The place itself is probably called neither of these names in Albanian, the local language.

(Also, @Maleschreiber, don't forget to notify the article creator, Keremmaarda, about this AfD.)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This battle was connected to the Third Siege of Krujë in 1467. Our article for that siege says that Burshek is in the Shkumbin River valley, so that's something of a clue to location. We also have Category:Mountain passes of Albania - it doesn't mention Burshek.

The reference for our Third Siege of Krujë article is The Sultan of Vezirs: The Life and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud. The 1467 Ottoman campaign in Albania is covered on pages 163-164; it does not mention Burshek but devotes a lengthy paragraph to a general account of heavy fighting and pillaging in the mountains. This section has footnotes for potentially more detailed references for this campaign.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With anything related to Skanderbeg, I am immediately skeptical because of how much romanticism surrounds his campaigns, both from the Christian and Turkish perspectives. As such, I am concerned that the only academic mentions (ex. [19][20]) I could find of this battle is in Turkish historiography from the late 20th-century, a period of increased nationalism in Turkey. As such, even if this battle did occur (which in fairness, it probably did, though maybe not in the way the article suggests), I would not trust any numbers; for example, this article suggests that more than 10,000 Albanians were casualties, though the Albanian army rarely exceeded 10,000 men ([21]). Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unlikely this battle even occurred, a battle that involved the 2 greatest leaders of the 15th century to not be recorded is simply impossible and also Mehmed II would've never gone to battle against Skanderbeg with only 30 thousand troops he regularly had 80-100 thousand troops in his military campaigns. But also the sources the creator of the page uses are very unreliable, 2 out of the 8 sources he added have Sites the rest don't, 6 out of the 8 sources are Pro-Ottoman sources I.E not reliable, 1 out of the 2 None Turkish sources was written by Franz Babinger, an orientalist and historian who's many doctrines were speculative and not supported with evidence. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the most famous biography of Franz Babinger is one of the few academic works available with no cited sources, and its authority rests solely on the reputation of the author's research abilities. The only other non-Turkish source was written by John Freely. I took the liberty of searching for the words "Burshek," "Shkumbin," and "Büzürşek" (names of the area according to the creator of the page), but nothing came up. This means that not even his own source agrees with him. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used Babinger for the number of armies in the 1467 Albanian campaign, but not in the part where I described the war. And John Freely, I explained what was in the background, why Mehmed went on the Albanian expedition. I took the war part from Selahattin Tansel's book and I added another university thesis there, you can see it in the PDF part of the page. I did not read the Albanian documents in the sources of the period, but in the Turkish sources, the war is mentioned in the works of Kemalpaşazade and Tursun Bey. Keremmaarda (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. If we can't have a reliable article, we don't want it hanging around.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The discussion above concluded that the article is not based on reliable sources, and that most of the sources don't even mention a battle in a place called Burshek. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, are university sources unreliable? Ottoman sources of the period mention that Burshek was the name of a valley. Keremmaarda (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or are you trying to protect Skanderbeg? Keremmaarda (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All things considered, the battle isnt documented in any other sources. Marlin Barleti, one of the main sources for the life of Skanderbeg, never mentioned the battle. In his 500+ page book about the life of Skanderbeg only mentioned Burshek once as one of the villages south of Elbasan where he set up camp. There is no mention of a battle in the area. Although I must say that there is a rather vague line about the Ottomans setting camp which states: "...after he enforced and secured the area he set up his camp...". The line could suggest that there was a struggle the Ottomans encountered in the area, or that the Ottomans ordered scouts to search for an enemy ambush ,but its too vague and ambiguous. So in the end, the battle wasn't well recoded to be considered "canon". Gertice4 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made the beginning too confusing, when I say "one of the villages south of Elbasan where he set up camp" by "he" I mean Mehmed, not Barleti. Gertice4 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, the reality of the war has been accepted by the Wikipedia admin. They were just looking for geographic area. Keremmaarda (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the case then the page would be up for deletion. A grographical error wouldnt be a reason to entierly delete a wiki page Gertice4 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have spent some time searching for sources. I don't know how much anyone will think it's worth, but here is a summary of what I found. Searching for information about this is not helped either by the fact that "Burshek" appears to be an idiosyncratic version of the name, not used, as far as I can find, anywhere other than in this Wikipedia article, or by the fact that Google translates Büzürşek or Buzurşek into English as Buzursek, which likewise doesn't seem to be in common use. The natural English transliteration of Buzurşek is Buzurshek, and I have found a few sources referring to a battle at Buzurşek (in Turkish) or Buzurshek (in English). There aren't many of them, and I'm not sure how reliable they are, but they certainly exist, and are clearly referring to the same incident as in the Wikipedia article, though there is not a lot of overlap in the actual information about the battle. If the sources can be relied on, then the battle did take place, though I have been able to find far less coverage of it than I would have liked. I also haven't found any mention of Buzurşek or Buzurshek in any context other than referring to this battle, but it appears to have been merely the name of a narrow stretch of a valley, and it's entirely possible that it was a small and insignificant part, so that the name was rarely recorded, and that it has not survived into modern times. It's also possible that there is more about it, but in Albanian, where the form of the name will not be identical to that in Turkish, and so I don't know what to search for. There may likewise be more coverage of the battle in Albanian. There may even be more in English under a different anglicisation of the name: I only came up with Buzurshek because I know enough about Turkish spelling to think that a likely anglicisation, and for all I know the usual form may be yet another spelling, not Buzurshek, Buzursek, or Burshek.
Here are some sources which I found:

https://www.tarihikadim.com/fatih-sultan-mehmedin-arnavutluk-seferleri-1466-1467-1468/ which is cited in the article, and which says, in Google translation, In the spring of 1467, the Ottoman army moved towards Albania. Hearing the news that Mehmed the Conqueror had come upon him with a large army, Iskender Bey lifted the Ilbasan Siege and retreated. Even on this news, Sultan II Mehmed showed that he wanted to solve the Albanian problem by not ending the expedition. The most difficult struggle for the Ottoman army in this expedition took place in the Buzursek Strait. The struggle of the Ottoman army and Albanian troops in the bottleneck, surrounded by mountains on both sides, continued from morning to evening... etc etc...
https://about-history.com/the-story-of-gjergj-kastrioti-skanderbeg-a-true-enemy-to-the-sultan/ which says Yet in July 1467 the whole Turkish army with Sultan Mehmet at its head again assaulted Albania. At Buzurshek near Elbasan a bloody battle was fought out..
https://acikerisim.uludag.edu.tr/bitstream/11452/9979/1/264994.pdf for which the Google translation is so incoherent as to be almost totally incomprehensible, but it mentions Buzurshek, and then "a fierce battle in his throat", which I think must be a very poor translation of an original which probably means something like a fierce battle in the narrow stretch of the Buzurshek valley. (Compare the translation above as "bottleneck".) JBW (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to understand how a toponym can be named Buzurshek before the Ottoman conquest of Albania. I have not seen any significant RS that can uphold the article and prove the claims. As per WP:UNDUE, I can not see any ground to let it stay. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the initial source cited, the Ottoman forces advanced towards Albania, and that Mehmed the Conqueror himself responded by assembling an army to counter the threat. With an army numbering around 30 thousand soldiers. In the context of the vast Ottoman Empire, this force could be considered relatively modest, as numerous pashas wielded similar or even more substantial military army's. Consequently, one could argue that the decision of the Sultan to directly engage a formidable opponent like Skanderbeg, renowned for his successes against larger enemy forces, appears rather imprudent and fraught with risk. Therefore, invites skepticism regarding the purported strategy of confronting Skanderbeg's forces head-on, given the Ottoman Empire's vast resources and potential for more nuanced approaches to dealing with regional adversaries. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~. Despite the confusion on the spelling, there appears to have been a battle in "Buzurshek". It is unclear whether it is notable enough, and there are various problems regarding the sources. Though, apart from the primary sources and websites such as "tarihikadim", there appears to be some likely RS here (which I didn't check for verification). But then, many book references lack page numbers. As per JBW's findings and since the creator of the article is active and has commented on the AfD nomination, I suggest draftification. If it can't reach a level that is adequate for the mainspace after some time, it will be deleted anyways. Aintabli (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As one of the few sources that could be decent turned out to be a Masters dissertation and as per new comments by others, including the article's creator, I don't believe draftification would help anymore. Aintabli (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a article can be sustained with sources like "acikerisim.uludag.edu.tr" and "tarihikadim.com". About the second source, it says following:

Yet in July 1467 the whole Turkish army with Sultan Mehmet at its head again assaulted Albania. At Buzurshek near Elbasan a bloody battle was fought out. Through the victory he had achieved [...]

It would have been recorded in multiple historical sources, as well as in many reliable sources if this battle really happened (involving 40.000 alleged fighters). AlexBachmann (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexBachmann "acikerisim.uludag.edu.tr" is not some random website. It is the DSpace of Bursa Uludağ University, but when I checked the citation part there, I noticed it reads "Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi", which means "unpublished Masters thesis", so it is not necessarily reliable (not because of the "website"). Aintabli (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do I need to do and what do you want? Keremmaarda (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well what do you want to improve when the battle might never have happened? AlexBachmann (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have seen no decent arguments about why it should stay in the mainspace. The sources cited are unreliable, it's highly unlikely Mehmed II came to fight Skanderbeg with only 30 thousand troops and I have watched many documentary and videos about Skanderbeg in my life and not a single video ever talked about such battle. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mehmed did not care about Skanderbeg and Albania. He saw his biggest rivals as Hungarian king Janos and Uzun Hasan. And he is besieging a fortress like Belgrade with a force of 30 thousand, it would be an ideal figure for Mehmed to land an army of 30 thousand for Albania. Because Albania is a small place in his eyes, even he has a saying "I can knock it down with one look" Says. Keremmaarda (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mehmed thought highly of Skanderbeg, when Skanderbeg died in 1468 Mehmed is quoted by saying "Woe to Christianity; they have lost their sword and shield" and saying Mehmed could've conquered Albania if hr wanted to while losing 2 sieges and 1 campaign against Skanderbeg himself is you just trying to undermine Skanderbeg. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Franz Babinger says the phrase "he lost his swords and shields" is a fabrication. Mehmed saw Janos Hunyadi and Uzun Hasan as his biggest rivals because they were the kings of a powerful state. Don't get me wrong, Skanderbeg is for me a stronger opponent than Uzun Hasan and Hunyadi, but in Mehmed's eyes he was not. Keremmaarda (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Mehmed does not lose against Skanderbeg in any siege. Keremmaarda (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Mehmed thought 30 thousand troops would be an ideal number to attack Albania with, why did he regularly send pashas with greater armies than that to face Skanderbeg, Even his own father (Murad II] gathered 100-400 thousand troops to siege Krujë in 1450 and still lost, These are all battles that Skanderbeg fought where the Ottomans had a higher troops number than 30 thousand: Battle of Albulena, Battle of Torvioll, Mehmed II's Albanian campaign, Skanderbeg's Macedonian campaign, First Siege of Krujë, Second Siege of Krujë and Third Siege of Krujë to name a few and not counting the Siege of Svetigrad where Murad II and Mehmed II sieged the fortress of Svetigrad with 80 thousand troops (Skanderbeg wasn't involved in the siege). Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe the number 150-400 thousand? These army numbers are exaggerated. Since there are no modern authoritative numbers, period sources are used. An army of 150,000 men could not be reached even during the reign of Sultan Suleiman. The scientist Halil Inalcik says that Sultan Suleiman gathered a maximum of 117,000 armies.It is impossible to have that many armies during the reign of Sultan Murad and Sultan Mehmed. And Sultan Mehmed pashas usually give 15-20k army. If we look at the sources of the period, Mehmed enters Albania with an army of 200 thousand, but the document found by Franz Babinger says that his army consists of 30 thousand people. Let alone believing the exaggerated period sources, Sultan Murad did not collect 100k armies even in Kosovo and Varna. And scientist Halil İnalcık says that Mehmed gathered the biggest army Battle of Otlukbeli, the number of this army is between 85-100k. Keremmaarda (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And think about it. According to modern sources, Mehmed has an army of 60-80k even during the siege of Istanbul, and according to İlber Ortaylı, he has an army of 50 thousand people. Do you think the man who managed to raise 60-80k armies for the siege of Istanbul can raise 100-400k men for Kruje? Keremmaarda (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the battles I mentioned have sources for the strength of the Ottoman force, unlike your Battle of Burshek (which is also a key reason why it should be deleted). And what does a scientist have to do with this kind of history? I would confidently say that I know more about this type of history than most scientists, and I have shown countless times that Franz Babinger is NOT a reliable source. Furthermore, since you only take history from Turkish sources, why don't you stop using Babinger's sources, just as Halil İnalcık suggested? It's funny how you mentioned the Battle of Otlukbeli as the battle where Mehmed II had the most troops in his life, but when you look at the page and scroll down to the page history section, you removed 300,000 Ottoman cavalry from the strengths section. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Halil İnalcık is a scientist in the field of history. And no the Ottomans didn't have 300,000 soldiers, they are numbers that are exaggerated to make the Ottomans strong. Keremmaarda (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Büzürşek/Bursek is Byshek, a well-known location near Elbasan. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources follow each other, show that this war exists, and there is no source that denies this war. Thank you for finding the geo-region, what's more the problem for the page to be deleted? Keremmaarda (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are weak and unreliable and you have failed to explain how the battle isn't mentioned in any Venetian, albanian, greek or hungarian sources but only Turkish one's (excluding Franz Babinger who's many doctrines were speculative and not supported with evidence). Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am only 17 years old, I could not read Albanian, Venetian and Hungarian documents, I can only benefit from Turkish sources. And is it unusable because it is the source of the Turks? I have seen many wars of Skanderbeg that are recorded on Wikipedia but not in Turkish sources, why don't we delete them? Keremmaarda (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think when I for an example add a source that's in Macedonia, do you think I speak Macedonian or do you think I translate it like everyone else? And what I mean by unreliable is that those sources don't even have articles or anyway to see if the things you are saying are actually in those sources. I already showed how one of your sources doesn't even have the words "Burshek", "Büzürşek", "Shkumbin" and "Buzurshek" in it. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And in the discussion section, a Wikipedia administrator threw an Foreign page. Keremmaarda (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took a look around, and the topic fails to meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. The only thing the article says about the alleged battle is The Sultan pressed the Albanian forces in a narrow valley called Burshek, while arming the surrounding mountains with Rumelian and Anatolian soldiers. The battle lasted from morning to evening, with both sides suffering heavy losses. The Albanians wanted to take advantage of the darkness of the night and decided to make a night raid. The night raid ended with the devastation of the Albanians. This is not a proper discription of a battle, but just 3 generic sentences. They are based on a single source. The rest of the article is "Background" and "Aftermath" about things this or that guy did without any meaningful relation with the battle. As noted above, the infobox makes the ridiculous claim that Skanderbeg lost 10,000 fighters. This would be his biggest loss, however I found no RS specializing in Skanderbeg or that period's Albania mentioning this battle (Malcolm, Schmitt, Frasheri, Anamali etc). Unless multiple high-quality RS are found to elaborate on this battle, it can't have its own article. 2 or 3 sentences based on RS could be added to Skanderbeg's rebellion if RS are found but they only mention the conflict in passing. From my own research, it seems that a conflict happened in Byshek near Elbasan, but it might have been a minor one or part of a larger battle since academics have not cared much about. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:04, 30 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!} 18:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alayna Westcom[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Vermont. Let'srun (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Bennington Banner article possibly counts towards notability, but more independent coverage is needed to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:24, 28 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!} 18:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. Kaliyamurthy[edit]

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

Served for 35 years in the police, became Superintendant of Tiruchirappalli. Was awarded 27 Meritorious Service Entry and 150 Good Service Entry Medals. Among these, neither the 'Chief Minister's medal for gallantry' nor the 'President’s Police Medal for Distinguished Service' are mentioned in the linked "Awards and decorations of the Indian Armed Forces". BTW, the 'police medal for meritorious service' had 482 grantees in 2008. Subject then retired and became a motivational speaker. He spoke - at times a lot. And there, Ladies and gentleman, our case rests. Fails WP:GNG as a policeman or as a speaker. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and Tamil Nadu. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One out of 480 recipients for a medal seems rather ROUTINE, not meeting GNG for the speaker position. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b, thank you for your message. I understand your concern regarding the number of recipients for the medal and its relevance to the speaker position. I'd like to clarify that the selection process for the medal recipients might vary based on specific criteria and guidelines. However, it's important to note that the medal recipients are not directly linked to the qualifications for the speaker position.

The speaker position's requirements and selection process are usually governed by separate criteria to ensure a fair and suitable candidate is chosen. While the number of medal recipients may seem routine, it doesn't necessarily impact the selection process for the speaker position.

If you have any specific suggestions or information that could improve the article or make it more relevant, I would be happy to consider incorporating them. Let's work together to ensure the content is accurate and well-represented. Please feel free to provide any further insights you may have. Thank you. Anandhakesavan (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When reviewing this (before the AfD nomination) I checked the references and also noted the absence of a citation for some of the awards. Seems to fall below the GNG. MarcGarver (talk) 16:48, 26 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!} 18:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declan O'Dwyer (director)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Declan O'Dwyer (director)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've broken the AfD wikibot... Help! Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Ireland. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, so we're back. I can't find sourcing for this fellow beyond a few Deadline articles confirming he's directed various projects. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In terms of WP:GNG, my own WP:BEFORE searches have returned no significant coverage. As the subject is Irish, I searched in the usual Irish national/general news outlets (Irish Times, Irish Independent, Irish Examiner, RTÉ, etc) and found nothing. Not even passing mentions. I also searched in the Irish media/film news outlets (screenireland.ie, iftn.ie, etc). Also nothing. In terms of WP:NDIRECTOR, all we have (to support a claim to being "an important figure [..] widely cited by peers" or "won significant critical attention") is a 2019 daytime Emmy nom. Which, while impressive and laudable, isn't anywhere close to the typically expected by convention in these types of discussions. The COI/SPA/PROMO overtones do little to help. Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 21:21, 26 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!} 06:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Midwest destinations[edit]

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

And also the following list of 81 other airline-destination articles, all either citing no sources or only one source:

81 Airline destination lists

Per the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations, these are not suitable content for Wikipedia. A subsequent AN discussion recommended these be listed for deletion at AFD in orderly fashion, with a link to the RFC, and the closer of any AFD was to take the RFC into account in any close. That the 2018 RFC remains the consensus of the Wikipedia community was re-emphasised in a recent, well-advertised and attended AFD in which 14 articles were deleted, a consensus to delete that was subsequently strongly endorsed on review. Since May a total of 57 airline destination lists have been deleted in 18 different AFD discussions, including lists of the destinations of national flag-carriers and of a member of Star Alliance, with none being closed as kept that I am aware of.

The articles should be deleted as they are failures of WP:NOT. Specifically, they are exhaustive lists of the services offered by commercial enterprises as well as being essentially travel-guides. They are also effectively advertising for the companies concerned, another thing that Wikipedia is explicitly not. Since they can only be true on a particular, randomly-selected day, they are ephemeral and impossible to maintain given the way airline schedules change constantly, but if you did try to do keep them up to date, what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news.

In addition to this, every one of these articles is dedicated entirely to exhaustive lists of trivial, run-of-the-mill details of commercial operations of a kind that WP:CORP expressly bars from being used to sustain notability, making the content of them essentially trivia and non-notable ab initio. This includes "simple listings or compilations, such as ... product or service offerings" and "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as...the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops [and/or] the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business". They are the equivalent of a list of pizzas sold by Pizza Hut on 3 October 2007, or a list of Blockbuster Video outlets operating on 23 January 1988: pure indiscriminate trivia (another thing that Wikipedia is not).

The sourcing of these articles also universally fails to sustain notability under WP:GNG let alone WP:CORP. The articles that include any reference, are either cited to the airline itself or to aviation industry press that fails to meet the WP:ORGIND standard. No source is cited, having significant coverage of the destinations of each airline, that would meet the audience standards under WP:AUD. Realistically, the only people who can ever tell you what services an airline is operating is the airline itself. Particularly where the lists declare a service to be "terminated", this has been achieved through original research by comparing lists of previous services with those presently operated by the airline, since even if a source could found saying the service was terminated, that only verifies as of the date the reference was published, not as of the date given for the list which may be years later.

(I'll try to template the articles in the next few days, but if anyone with AWB would like to do it in the meantime that would be great) FOARP (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia, Afghanistan, China, Laos, Israel, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Caribbean, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, United States of America, and Texas. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; violates WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTGUIDE. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide, also these are always out of date as they are not properly maintained, which renders them of no value to anyone. Basically a non-encyclopedic subject. - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically a catalog of their products. Plus in reality, as with any catalog, it would change rapidly and not be maintained. Thirdly, it would inherently not have secondary sourcing. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the information by its nature is either ephemeral (for current up-to-the-minute destinations) or indiscriminate and likely unverifiable (for an exhaustive list of every destination in history). These seems rather low-value, high-maintenance information that lies outside of such guidances as WP:IINFO and WP:NOT. --Jayron 32 16:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, mainly WP:INDISCRIMINATE section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all the above, and probably more. The nail in the coffin is that several members of WP:AIR have posted here to air the same view. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain an adequately sourced list could pass NLIST, but I couldn't find any sources at all in the five I spot-checked apart from timetables. SportingFlyer T·C 19:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer - They might theoretically pass NLIST, but not WP:CORP which, as articles listing the services offer by a company, they need to pass in order to show notability. The reason why this is so is that accurate, exhaustive lists of destinations that an airline flies to can only be sourced from that company (or media reports based on the announcements of that company) since they change all the time. Just as much to the point, they need also to comply with WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think so - I think one of these articles that passed NLIST would also be a valid split, considering we frequently include rail route maps which are essentially the same thing. SportingFlyer T·C 11:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of the products and services of a company fall explicitly within the scope of WP:CORP. Rail routes are physical infrastructure and exempt from WP:CORP. Air services provided by a company are ephemeral, can be announced and cancelled at the drop of a hat, do not involve intervening infrastructure and so aren’t. Split lists still need to meet notability guidelines as stand-alone articles per WP:AVOIDSPLIT - they cannot inherit the notability of the article they split from because notability is not inherited. No article gets a pass on WP:NOT simply because it is a split-list.

This was all covered in the previous AFD, which closed as delete and was endorsed at DELREV. FOARP (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you, but that's fine, and it's completely irrelevant to the AfD at hand anyways. There may be airlines where the routes or destinations pass NLIST, that is a very high bar, none of the articles appear to at the moment, but this should not preclude their recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 22:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I echo what's above; I've always felt these types of lists are better suited for WikiTravel. We aren't helping anyone if these lists are never maintained and without any kind of critical discussion, a long list of random facts is rather useless. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For funsies, I pulled one out of a hat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arik_Air_destinations. List was current to 2015, archived in 2019. Lead says it's current to 2021 and they only fly to seven destinations. Below is a list of a few dozen places that they don't fly to... So it's almost a decade old, out of date by three years? Oh great, if I never need a historical list for this airline from 2017, I can look it up? That's too much minutiae for Wikipedia and is rather niche. Simply googling old timetables would be a better use of my time. So there is no real reason to keep it here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And even the AN discussion the nominator mentions was in 2018; if no one's adopted these lists in the FIVE years since then, I'm not sure what we're expecting to happen... Let's get rid of them and move on to more important things. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b - That's a good one. The only way any of the Arik Air destinations can be sourced is by going to Arik Air's website and looking at where they're flying to that day. The basis for saying a destination is "terminated" as of April 2021 can only be original research (i.e., comparing the April 2021 destinations with older ones and arriving at a conclusion not stated in the source - that the destination is terminated as of April 2021). Even with this the entire list is a WP:V failure because the source isn't from April 2021 - it's from something they looked at in October 2015 and the archived version is from July 2019. And even if the date were changed to the archive date... was Arik Air actually flying to all those destinations on that date, or were they just saying that they did?
I honestly don't know how we ended up with this whole corpus of articles that can only be sourced ultimately from the airlines themselves, and were clear WP:NOT violations. Reviewing the RFC and AN discussions, as well as the earlier AFD discussion in January 2007, May 2007, 2015, and 2018 it appears that most of the opposition was sparked either by the idea that the lists were "useful" or simply opposition to deleting that many articles in one go - in retrospect a great deal of time would have been saved had the problem been dealt with back in 2006 when it first arose, but that's Wikipedia for you. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See voy:Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. Our sister project is Wikivoyage.

Prior discussions there have indicated that, as a small community, they do not want to maintain these articles and would prefer for them to be at Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that says a lot that even they don't want to maintain them. For the reasons stated above they certainly do not belong here on Wikipedia. Where they do belong and are already available is on the airlines' websites. - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. They may well want to shuffle the useless things off onto us, but that is our decision not theirs. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like no one thinks they are notable for any website, save the airlines themselves. I think this actually strengthens the delete votes here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. WP:NOTGUIDE and most lists don't pass WP:CORP, even if some were formerly Nationalised airlines, which for the most part largely still doesn't pass WP:INHERENT. Coastie43 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all all totally unencyclopedic. Maungapohatu (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per NOT. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The nominating statement provides a detailed and accurate rationale for why these articles are not helpful to the encyclopedia. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and proactively endorse deletion of all future such lists at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I would of had say merge a brief overview to their parent articles, but I spot checked a few and the sources do not seem good enough to use as a base. Also question for nominator, does this AfD cover every airline destination list articles that have "no sources or only one source"? Jumpytoo Talk 02:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through all the articles in the airline destination list category back in May and these are the ones I found then. Possible I’ve missed some since I am only human, and also possible some have been created since then. There may be multiple citations in some cases, but these should be to the same source (eg multiple citations to the airline website). FOARP (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete Effectively my only opposition to this is to the deletion of so many articles at one time. I am always wary of throwing out so much work at once, no matter how low quality and un-encyclopedic it may be. That said, clearly nobody has much interest in maintaining these, thus they will remain low-quality and out of date. SurferSquall (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why limit this nomination to just articles with no sources or only one source? If I am reading the 2018 RfC and consensus here correctly then all articles in Category:Lists of airline destinations should be deleted. Charcoal feather (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For historical airlines which no longer exist, the question of currency and maintenance does not arise. Historical notability of the service becomes the main criterion. For extant lines with a long history, things get complicated and would need to be treated on a case-by-case basis. I'd rather not go into all that here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[update] I checked some sample lists for historic airlines. Our lists are equally awful there; self-published sources, whether as a standalone article or a section in the parent. The article on Imperial Airways takes a more narrative approach to the historic routes, which is far better. If the odd baby is thrown out with the bathwater, it can always be added back in somewhere more sensible. I now agree that the lists should go en masse. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For airlines that no longer exist, the WP:NOT problem (particularly WP:IINFO and WP:NOTCATALOGUE) is still there.

There’s also massive WP:V/WP:CORP/WP:CRYSTAL/WP:OR issues.

Particularly, if you give a list of services operating on a particular date then the only source that can conceivably sustain that is the company itself - no-one else (except maybe equally non-independent industry press?) is going to provide such an exhaustive listening. But if you instead try to state start/finish dates for the services listed, you’ll be cobbling together sources (again, almost universally sourced ultimately to the airline) to state a conclusion that none of them actually say. Additionally, coverage of services in industry press is almost always from before the service starts/stops, and thus is forecasting the future for something that may not actually have happened.

TL;DR - these lists were always a mistake and should have been deleted back in 2006 when this issue first came up. FOARP (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately when Beeblebrox tried to do it in one go people complained (see the AN discussion linked in the nom). However we’ve now had 19 AFD discussions in a row about these things that have ended with the article being deleted, all of them with practical super-majorities for deletion. There just ain’t no “there” there. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drooly delete, where "drooling" is how I respond to the thought that at least some volatile, poorly or totally unsourced, perpetually inaccurate lists might be purged (for a while) from Wikipedia. I picked three at random; one was List of Air Bucharest destinations, which I found to be much like the Arik Air example mentioned above. Of the 11 destinations listed, only one has a citation. That source was "Retrieved 12 September 2015", "archived ... on 18 January 2016", and when I view the archive, it shows an image of a PowerPoint-type destination summary (slide 4) from December 2013. With about 105 destinations.
WP:NOT and WP:V and, oh; I'm drooling again. I'd also like to see that the destinations list don't start growing again unsourced in the parent airline's article, but I suppose that's too much to hope for. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a good one because (reviewing the article history) that article was both prod’d and AFD’d, but has never, ever, in its entire history, conformed to our most basic standards on encyclopaedic content and sourcing. It is ONLY airline-fandom and opposition to removing mass-created and failing content en masse that has kept it on this encyclopaedia.

Even the (bad) argument that some of these were featured lists and so all of them should be kept which was put forward by Lugnuts in 2018 no longer has any validity. Neither of the airline destination lists that were made FL should ever have passed (not least because they weren’t properly sourced), and both have since been de-listed due to these problems.

It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category. I’ve got one more list of another ~100 poorly-sourced articles to go nominate after this one, but then we really should just mass-delete the remaining ~200. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Do we need to break this widening-out of the AfD as a separate subsection, or add it to the rationale? We should probably also notify a few wikiprojects of the change. I don't want post-closure complaints that we snuck it through without due notification. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst the related projects have been notified of deletion, it does seem that many participants from the past (mass nominated) AFDs of the destination lists in 2006, 2007 and 2015 have either moved on from either Wikipedia entirely, or are editing different topics. It was also noted that in earlier previous AFDs there was some cross-posting of past deletion discussions to the outside community (e.g posting the AFD links to airliners.net for example). Also noted that a few promiment contributors that are still active over at the Aviation (and related WikiProjects) that has participated in the AFDs in the past, have chosen to no longer participate in the discussion after the past few AFDs have led to deletions. This may probably suggest that virtually no-one are willing to adopt the lists for editing and keeping up to date considering a large number of lists have anywhere between 2 to 5 years gaps between edits. Coastie43 (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting Category:Lists of airline destinations, all who dwell therein, and a bunch of in-article lists elsewhere, does seem in a different order from deleting a mere 81 inhabitants. Maybe it'd be simpler to delete the 81 for now, and wait for any ripples to subside before going postal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What views do you (all) have about what should happen if (at least) these 82 lists are deleted? The airlines' articles generally have a "Destinations" section with something like {{main|List of Air Bucharest destinations}} which produces:

Main article: List of Air Bucharest destinations

Should those {{main}} templates be merely deleted, along with the presumably then-empty Destinations section? Part of our problem is that we don't have current and reliably sourced destinations, so this seems the appropriate course, but I wanted to explicitly clarify our intentions. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much exactly that. If certain destinations have verifiable significance (via independent sources) then that significance can be discussed under suitable headings (see for example the Imperial Airways article), but the lists themselves all go in the bin. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles are a trove of (mostly quite accurate) valuable information which has taken years to compile and is difficult to find in such a synthetic form anywhere else than here, therefore they are of great use for airline enthusiasts. I would also like to point out that some of these airlines, such as Sabena are now defunct and of great historical importance, therefore these lists cannot be considered free advertising, rather they are information which provide historical context about the history of a major airline, and could be improved if more sources were added.

After reading the discussion however, it seems to me there will not be a policy-based consensus to keep them on Wikipedia, but wouldn't there be any way to download/export these articles in order to repost them to a more appropriate website? I'm asking mostly about those that are already deleted (which I therefore can't download), as I find myself using these articles relatively often and wasn't aware of their AfD status until now. Even if these are considered not good enough for Wikipedia, I would like to save this data before it disappears permanently, as it is not found anywhere else (some have suggested airline websites but this doesn't work for defunct airlines and is sometimes not listed directly).

DominikWSP (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reading WP:Userfication, I was thinking that, if others agree, moving the articles (at least those relating to more important or defunct airlines) to userspace might be a solution to avoid losing years of work on hundreds of articles in this category. These might come with a time freeze and a disclaimer, but would still be usable as a historical reference, especially for airlines which are already defunct and whose list of destinations at closure is thus complete. DominikWSP (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DominikWSP, I suggest you copy what you want today. It's a little late into the discussion to be suggesting alternatives when it's almost 100% Delete all point of view among participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 31 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. ✗plicit 14:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Breast Cancer Foundation[edit]

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

No significant coverage can be found for this organization. What news can be found is either in the form or press releases, or negative coverage about their questionable fundraising practices and costs. But even then, they are not especially notable as a bad charity; it's just that that is the only thing they are even minorly notable for. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, Maryland, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search suggests that the group is notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts may be relevant. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is doubtful that Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts is relevant. UBCF has received coverage as a "bad charity", but only in the context that there are many bad charities, and UCBF is one of them. No coverage about their poor fundraising practices has focused solely on them and any particularly heinous criminal act. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, we could build a case for notability. They do charitable things [22] and have a somewhat questionable public image [23]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Appears to be just enough to pass GNG [[24]][[25]] User:Let'srun 21:28, 27 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!} 06:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annual International Exhibition[edit]

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

This is tagged for copy edit but the actual problems aren’t grammar/spelling/etc. The citation tag is correct though, as they are either not present, primary sources, or unverifiable. I can’t find better sources (WP:V), and I’m not sure the topic is actually notable per WP:EVENT ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United Kingdom. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added a couple of sources including this, and while some change is necessary, the topic seems notable to me. I can see a case for the article's name being changed.JohnmgKing (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try another relist to see if we can come to a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not the best put together article in the world but I'm convinced (particularly by the excellent article at Purdue's Branch) that it's not only a thing but that the presumption of notability exists. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 25 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 Superficial (album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Do It[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-charting single which doesn't appear to pass WP:NSONGS. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable musical piece. If it had some sort of coverage for the TikTok thing I might look at keeping it, there is none. Doesn't meet any of the music criteria for notability. SALT as well, 3 times at AfD is getting silly. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Superficial (album): Found one article on the song from Dazed which I included in the target article, but that's all I could get. SALTing would be overkill for an article that has only been at AfD twice (one of those listed is clearly for a different subject altogether and shouldn't be there), especially when the latter is now after the song has had a viral moment and it makes sense that someone would throw an article up for it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Superficial (album) as suggested per QuietHere. I would agree that salting is a step too far for what it is, but this shouldn't be its own article unless it gets resurrected the same way that Fleetwood Mac's song "Dreams" was (see CNN) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:16, 31 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. Star Mississippi 15:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods[edit]

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

For many of the same reasons I detailed at WP:AFD/Armenia in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, this article is unsuitable.

1.) The article is largely unreferenced. A total of three inline citations are present, with multiple sections going unreferenced altogether.
2.) The references do not appear to have segmented Armenian history into this periodization nor have affixed this particular title to the period which the article covers. It is possible that Simonyan source does utilize this periodization but, when considering its production and dissemination by the Armenian government against the more rigorous histories available, the Simonyan source may have neutrality issues.
3.) Speaking of neutrality issues, we tend to stray away from describing people as "ruler of the East, king of kings" in WikiVoice.
4.) Unusually, this article has hyphens or spaces in the middle of words ("es- tablishment", "cam- el", "influ- ence") that, at least to me, indicate the copy-and-pasting of a PDF or similar document format occurred somewhere in this article's creation. This does not necessarily indicate a copyright violation–it could be a private essay, which would explain the style in which this article was written.

Overall, this period of Armenian history should be covered on Wikipedia, but sources do not seem to support its coverage in this particular periodization and the sources do not seem to support much of the content present. Ultimately, it comes across as a non-neutral and wholly non-comprehensive account. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Armenia. Pbritti (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve- It would take a lot of work, but I think some content is salvageable and the article can definitely be improved to address the valid concerns above. It'll just take time and some work, but its not impossible. Archives908 (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Archives908: Do you have any references that suggest this periodization is generally regarded as appropriate in academic literature? ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Pbritti's well considered analysis. We have much better, more detailed coverage elsewhere:

- History of Armenia
  - Ancient Armenia
    - Satrapy of Armenia - the "Achaemenid" period under Persian rule
      - Origin of the Armenians
      - Orontid dynasty
    - After Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian Empire, the Orontids ruled an independent Kingdom of Armenia for a few years. They then ruled the Hellenistic kingdoms of
      - Commagene
      - Sophene
      - The Kingdom of Armenia itself
        Our Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) article includes the remainder of the Hellenistic period when Armenia was in the Seleucid Empire's sphere of influence.
        The Artaxiads kicked out the Orontids during this time and until the Romans moved in.

These are all long, richly referenced and well-written articles. In total, they cover this period with perhaps 10 times the coverage. The article we're discussing is not even a content fork -- it's just its own parallel island of unreliable stuff.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per A. B.. This period has been covered through other articles on Wikipedia. It is strange to have an article that repeats these two periods and merge them into one per se. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pbritti. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violent Delights + Violent Ends[edit]

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

Non-notable album, I can't find reviews or any sort of critical notice of it. The North Jersey article has suffered link rot and I can't comment how reliable it is, but the others used in the sourcing here are not RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found an archive version of the North Jersey article; it is potentially reliable but alone is insufficient for GNG. I can't find any reliable sources beyond this. I'd say redirect to the artist but there's an AfD there too and a cursory glance suggests the artist isn't notable either. If the artist's page survives, then a redirect will be fine. WJ94 (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samantha Scarlette. The album only received some minor announcements about its release, with no pro reviews or deeper coverage to be found. Procedural note: My vote is to redirect because that is standard procedure for non-notable albums, but events will be made more complicated by a scattered pile of AfDs surrounding this musician that should have been bundled together. If the musician's article survives, the album titles will still be there as possible search terms. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment - This debate is now moot because the singer's article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Scarlette (2nd nomination). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Into the Darkness EP & Demos. This album should now be deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 26 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!} 01:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leke adeboye[edit]

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

Not seeing notability, written like a resume. Appears to be simply a working pastor. No sources found beyond confirmation of the works of charity the person has done. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:47, 25 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. Delete (nom), 2 redirects, and 2 keep !votes. With 3 relists, it was not eligible for another. (non-admin closure) ArcAngel (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ye with grave[edit]

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

Cyrillic letters marked with the grave accent for syllabic stress (as used in dictionaries and readers), or to differentiate special letter usage, do not appear to represent distinct letters of any of the the respective alphabets. The articles about them are not notable subjects meeting WP:GNG, but merely the cross-section of the subject of the respective base letter with Grave accent or Stress (linguistics).

(They are not even articles about Unicode code points, because these accented letters can be represented either by a code point or using a combining accent, for example U+0400 Ѐ, or U+0415 U+0300 Ѐ.)

See Macedonian alphabet, Bulgarian alphabet, Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, Church Slavonic, and Early Cyrillic alphabet.

See also the previous successful RM of nine articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic), RM in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yat with acute. —Michael Z. 17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Europe. —Michael Z. 17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
I with grave (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

O with grave (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

U with grave (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hard sign with grave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Michael Z. 17:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grave accent. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:01, 8 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!} 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I with grave looks like it is close to being properly sourced, which makes me think everything but Hard sign with grave may also be able to be properly sourced. I also don't know how to search for sources in say Bulgarian. I think a merge with Grave accent is probably best at this time, but this could potentially be salvageable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, I think, without prejudice to possible mergers or reconfigurations. Most are already cited to some degree, all are almost certainly citable, and it seems quite unlikely that any would actually fail the GNG. Of course this is really a WP:NOT issue, so if not kept, soft redirect to Wiktionary (e.g. wikt:Ѐ), which is much better equipped for providing such information as can be provided. I don't see plausible merge targets at either grave accent or Cyrillic script. I don't think bundled noms like this are very productive; I note that the nom refers to these as "RMs" but in fact the first tranche have already been soft-deleted without being merged anywhere, and without any input from anyone besides the nom. That seems like a really unsatisfactory way of making content decisions. -- Visviva (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally typed RM when I meant AFD. There’s nothing else wrong with this. As you can see it was an AFD, the procedure was followed, and notifications were posted widely.

Beyond likelihood or not, why don’t you demonstrate that any of them actually meet GNG. That is the bar. —Michael Z. 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nom's not at fault because no one else !voted in the deletion discussion, but it's also not a consensus to delete. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. —Michael Z. 22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same as "boldly" deleting something. Anyone is welcome to challenge it. SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And no one has done so. The main argument to keep is “I don’t know,” accompanied by pure speculation about possibly meeting GNG, without any attempt to demonstrate it does.

The previous deletions have not been reversed or appealed. I’d be perfectly happy if someone did so with a valid rationale, but it has not materialized and I don’t think it exists.

This set is a bit different, because it concerns two different usage of the grave (as opposed to the acute), so I would be happy if it’s re-listed or gets wider input. Anyway. —Michael Z. 18:35, 14 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!} 22:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to see if we can come to a consensus. So far we have an implicit delete (nom), a redirect, and a keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine with me. But no problem with keeping this open either. —Michael Z. 14:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep, seems useful and well documented enough to me in spite of it being a niche thing. --Dynamo128 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:30, 26 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Torey[edit]

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

An orphan article. Coverage confirms he wrote a few books but nothing indepth. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and Hungary. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the SMH obit, which contrary to nomination's claim is indepth, is not enouh to convince you I've included details of book reviews below. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews:

The MIT Press Philosophy in Review

[26], [27], Terrible Gifts David McCooey , 2003 review, Australian Book Review , September no. 254 2003; (p. 50-51) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography

Light in the Darkness Shane McCauley , 2003 review, The West Australian , 6 September 2003; (p. 16) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography

Conscious Decisions Mary Rose Liverani , 2003 review, The Weekend Australian , 26-27 July 2003; (p. 11) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography ~654 words

Seeing Clearly Through the Mind's Eye Lesley Chow , 2003 review, The Sunday Age , 20 July 2003; (p. 10) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography ~691 words

Light from Darkness Luke Slattery , 2003 review, The Weekend Australian , 28-29 June 2003; (p. 24) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography ~907 words

The Remarkable Clarity of What a Blind Man Sees A. P. Riemer , 2003 review, The Sydney Morning Herald , 5-6 July 2003; (p. 15) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography

Also worth looking at [28]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the book reviews above, passes AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, that's plenty of reviews. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:03, 1 August 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 2016 and 2018 articles were not tagged for deletion, so they can not be deleted as a result of this AFD. ✗plicit 14:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Suwon JS Cup[edit]

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

Suwon JS Cup was deleted in 2015 following this AfD
2015 Suwon JS Cup was created in June 2016 by qphatv who then requested deletion
2016 Suwon JS Cup was created in May 2016 by TheBigJagielka and I thank them for that.
2017 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or deleted
2018 Suwon JS Cup was created on by Junes1994 on 24 Apr 2018 with sparse refences
2019 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or deleted
2020 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or deleted
2021 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or deleted
2022 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or deleted
2023 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or deleted

Please also see 2024 Suwon JS Cup Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Korea. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The content on the 2024 version appears to be a hoax. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not notable, fails verification (very little reputable information available online). I'm not sure whether the two other blue links above are included in this AfD, but those should probably be considered as well. – bradv 16:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article lacks sources, also barely and source available, but the 2018 edition won't as there are possible sources available about the score.

ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 16:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Suwon JS Cup its self is not a hoax, don't know about the the 2024 edition. I am not sure if its a senior competition or not, but I see sources for Under 19 and Under 17s being played in this cup competition in the past. It maybe possible that a main article of Suwon JS Cup could pass WP:BASIC, but who knows, it seems wikipedia has gone out of it's way to eradicate what it has here to help investigate or even build anything for that matter. From what we see on 2016 Suwon JS Cup, it appears to be a junior international friendly tournament. To be honest I am not impressed either. Btw, who are these guys [29] in that video? Does that not help todays notability? Govvy (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Giant Snowman 19:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — too early for the 2024 Suwon JS Cup article as sources do not exist yet. The 2018 Suwon JS Cup article is not a hoax and I added references found from Yonhap News Agency, Việt Nam News, The Korea Herald and TheThaoVanHoa, with routine coverage of the matches played (coaches, players, etc.) with scores and a description of the event. I guess this discussion will determine notability of the event, but I say keep the 2018 article.— Isaidnoway (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete right now it's WP:TOOSOON, and it remains to be seen if there will ever be enough coverage to justify a separate article (the 2016 and 2018 are very borderline non-notable, the 2024 one would need substantial coverage to pass WP:GNG). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 2024 Olympics will not be held in South Korea, as the article claims, and the article does not cite any sources. MistakeReporter (talk) 16:18, 31 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. ✗plicit 14:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eifo HaYeled[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was a notable band in Israeli music history. Article has been spruced up, info added, cats added, sources added.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it could always be improved further but I'd say the article qualifies as being decent enough now. Not sure if the redlinks over individual band members are necessary though. --Dynamo128 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous Israeli band that does not fail WP:NBAND or WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination. Somehow it was tagged for notability and I have removed that as currently debated and also baseless. This nomination is an obvious before failure. It was created 3 minutes after the previous, unrelated nomination. gidonb (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most conspicuous bands in Israeli music history, covered by countless comprehensive articles in major media Israeli outlets. Tzahy (talk) 19:17, 30 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 14:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Echolab[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Sources only are about the company being acquired by another. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, United States of America, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT. I was originally going to suggest a merge into Blackmagic Design but I have reservations about that page's notability as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 26 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 14:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Static interpretation of time[edit]

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

Proposed redirect to Eternalism (philosophy of time).

No references, written like an essay, would already be WP:TNT.
All the useful content in this article is already covered under Eternalism (philosophy of time).

. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 12:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Science. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 12:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. - car chasm (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- no one's permission is necessary to redirect a page. Why not just redirect it and discuss it with interested editors if anyone objects? The page history shows that no one has tried this. This would be much more appropriate than an AFD since nom's rationale already admits the subject is notable. Central and Adams (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A synonym for an idea much more widely discussed under other names (eternalism, block universe, B-theory), and not a synonym that is common enough itself to justify being made into a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to save here. Next time try WP:PROD. Johnjbarton (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not a common term, not needed as a redirect. Artem.G (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to save. My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 30 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 Polyamory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary and secondary (polyamory)[edit]

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

Verifiability, and may not be independently notable. One reference (to the essay that coined of the term). Delete or merge into Terminology of polyamory. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Polyamory as basic terminology that does not need its own article. — The Anome (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with The Anome that this is basic terminology that maybe deserves a sentence or two on the Polyamory article. Delete per WP:NOTDICT and the essay-like nature of the article. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 12:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the polyamory article is fine, nothing more than a DICDEF otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 25 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 14:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Pennekamp[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant and also doesn't meet WP:NMODEL. Let'srun (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and South Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly any sourcing at all found, not meeting GNG. Only one story about a murder, likely with a different individual. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 25 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 11:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aruzhan Abdrazak[edit]

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

Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2015 World Archery Championship. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports. Charsaddian (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject and does not meet criteria for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:49, 6 August 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 Teen Mania Ministries. Star Mississippi 15:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Cry: Worship from the Frontlines[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Charsaddian (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teen Mania Ministries - No evidence of notability, nor any evidence that it meets any WP:NALBUM criteria. WJ94 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teen Mania Ministries per nom and WJ94. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is not passed. A redirect does not seem useful as I can't see it mentioned on the target page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 26 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. If someone wants this to work on in draft, just let me know. Star Mississippi 15:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Elliot (footballer)[edit]

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

Elliot made 26 appearances in the Eerste Divisie over two seasons. A web search finds hardly anything and certainly no WP:SIGCOV. There may be offline sources but it seems doubtful to me. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to comply with WP:GNG as it lacks a minimum amount of independent sources with significant coverage. The player also doesn't seem to have trophies, which puts WP:SNG off. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning violates WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the article just a bit. This AfD is part of a mass nomination of Dutch footballers for which newspaper articles are no longer available online, while not quite included yet in the national newspaper archive. The statement There may be offline sources but it seems doubtful to me underestimates the central place of football in the Netherlands and the ability of Dutch media to cover it, to put it mildly. gidonb (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a searchable online archive for Dutch newspapers at all? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Spiderone, there sure is. It's called Delpher. Nominator structurally AfDd articles that fall into the lull between the newspapers online and the national archive. There are also regional archives that can archive newer newspapers, so for a few regions we can still find articles even if the career was in the 1990s and 2000s. Or they may have been covered out of region as the regional newspapers also carry national and international news, while focusing on the regional news. As proven at the sibling AfDs, these articles are notable and the AfDs address a vulnarability, rather than notability problem. gidonb (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is proven under Jeroen van Wetten that these footballers are notable. These are gotcha nominations, while sources are temporarily offline, also snubbing the Dutch. These AfDs cause long-term damage to WP because they blow an artificial - nonnotability based - hole in our coverage. gidonb (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Gidonb. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're evenly split here with two on each side of the fence. Relisting, hoping to garner consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG as the only coverage available is routine match reports and database entries. Jogurney (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The required sourcing has not been identified for even a presumption of GNG. Dutch sportsperson bios can wait until a person with access to the newspaper archives can actually assess coverage, just like we do for any other topic with inaccessible potential sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 30 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 Survivor: South Pacific. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Clarke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Even as the winner of Survivor: South Pacific, I can't help wonder whether finishing tenth in Survivor: Winners at War makes her more notable and whether finishing tenth itself is notable. Outside of Survivor, I couldn't find something else that makes her noteworthy. This isn't Tom Westman, also a two-time Survivor contestant. However, if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E applies, then what about WP:PAGEDECIDE? How about redirecting the page to either the South Pacific page or the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants page? George Ho (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Television. George Ho (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: South Pacific. Only winners should get their own articles. NYC Guru (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but at least ten articles about individual winners have been already redirected to their respective season pages. So far, two other articles were deleted per AFD discussions. George Ho (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: South Pacific per above as a plausible ATD. Otherwise delete. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:20, 2 August 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taisija Smirnova[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. NYC Guru (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, with all sources being either statistics or passing mentions. A PROD was contested. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - according to the user page of the article creator, the creator is the head of marketing for the Latvian Football Federation, so we have WP:COI to think about here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG; only match reports and database entries are available. Jogurney (talk) 13:55, 27 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 Inquiry (disambiguation). The nominator has withdrawn the AFD to instead make an uncontroversial merge. No need to keep the discussion going. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry (disambiguation)[edit]

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

After a bit of a cleanup, I found that there is only one true match on this DAB. I'm thinking that perhaps it needs to be merged with Inquiry (disambiguation), which can include Enquiry in the intro. Or...??? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - per comments below. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think in such a circumstance a WP:BOLD merge is almost always acceptable especially if you're not pruning too much. I leave this as a comment because you could feasibly withdraw and do that if you feel comfortable doing so. —siro χ o 09:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Siroxo. I was going to do that, but thought I might be missing something. I will do as you suggest, and as supported by Clarityfiend Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just add the one entry to Inquiry (disambiguation). None of the See also books and report should be transferred over, as they are simply (very) partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 25 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 and redirect‎ to International Monetary Fund#Executive Board. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Swiss constituency[edit]

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

Not notable.

No plausible redirect target. Un assiolo (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Poland, Serbia, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 12 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!} 23:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unless they have real tangible impact that is covered by high quality independent RS, this isn't a notable subject. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article may be removed due to poor formatting.--ETIBARMEMMEDOV ^{TT me} 22:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a quick search it appears that this is a platform for international cooperation that goes beyond just voting in IMF/WB. See for example mentions like "The main em- phasis was on providing support to the central banks of the Swiss constituency in the IMF ..." ([30]), "...carried out in the framework of a joint IMF- Swiss regional project for countries in the Swiss constituency" ([31]), "During the meeting of the Swiss Constituency the most important elements of policy of the World Bank and the IMF were presented , i.a. with respect to the prevention of financial crises . " ([32]), "Meeting of World Bank / IMF Constituency September 2000 saw the annual meeting of the World Bank / IMF Constituency which includes Poland ( the " Swiss Constituency " ) , organised by the NBP and the Ministry of Finance in Cracow". None of these are particularly good as article references, but the wordings shared here point to that the constituency plays some role in cooperation between states. --Soman (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above notes. The constituency is a political tool, and the concept is definitely non-trivial. Superboilles (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion page was never added to the 19 June log page upon the last relist. Relisting now and manually adding to the current day's log
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I would definitely expand this if possible with more information because article is very little but this is definitely a valuable institution. Боки ✉ 20:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please have some gng passing sources. The keep votes seem to be arguing based on assumptions not policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable subject under Wikipedia notability guidelines. Does not pass WP:GNG due to a lack of in-depth coverage. There is not enough information about this topic to expand it from a stub. The constituency is already mentioned in International Monetary Fund#Executive Board, where its mentioned that Switzerland, Poland and seven "near eastern" countries form a constituency. This can be expanded there via note, by listing the other countries. The percentage of voting rights is subject to periodic change, and is therefore not a useful piece of information. If we decide to keep this, we could then create articles for the remaining likewise non-notable 24 (the IMF has 24 and the World bank has 25 total) constituencies. In that case, these articles should be merged into a List of constituencies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, or similar, but the resulting page would also be relatively short, and considering WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:MERGE (context) could simply be merged into the IMF parent article (49kb of readable prose). As these constituencies seem to be more or less the same for the IMF and the World Bank (where this constituency is called EDS24), the same information could be added to the World Bank article. To conclude, information about the constituencies should be added directly to the IMF and World Bank articles.—Alalch E. 10:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this link to understand that there are 24 directors of the IMF and they all represent a constituency, which may be one or more countries. All countries that are IMF (and World Bank) members are therefore either a constituency or form a constituency, and there is nothing special or distinguishing about "the Swiss constituency". —Alalch E. 10:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constituencies

World Bank constituencies	IMF constituencies 2019 (leader - group)
EDS1 - United States	United States - United States
EDS2 - Japan	Japan - Japan
EDS3 - United Kingdom	United Kingdom - United Kingdom
EDS4 - France	France - France
EDS5 - Germany	Germany - Germany
EDS6 - Afghanistan, Algeria, Ghana, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan and Tunisia	Iran - Afghanistan, Algeria, Ghana, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia
EDS7 - Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Ireland, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines	Canada - Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Ireland, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines
EDS8 - Argentina, Chile, and Peru	Argentina - Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay
EDS9 - Australia, Cambodia, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.	Australia - Australia, Kiribati, Korea, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu
EDS10 - Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Czechia, Hungary, Kosovo, Luxembourg, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Turkey	Turkey - Austria, Belarus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Kosovo, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Turkey
EDS11 - Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, West Bank and Gaza, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen	Egypt - Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
EDS12 - Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Sri Lanka	India - Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka
EDS13 - Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal and Togo	Mauritania - Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Togo
EDS14 - Botswana, Burundi, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe	South Africa - Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
EDS25 - Angola, Nigeria and South Africa
EDS15 - Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Panama, Philippines, Suriname, and Trinidad & Tobago	Brazil - Brazil, Cabo Verde, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Suriname, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago
EDS16 - Brunei, Fiji, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, Vietnam	Indonesia - Brunei, Cambodia, Fiji, Indonesia, Lao P.D.R., Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, Vietnam
EDS17 - China	China - China
EDS18 - Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Spain	Colombia - Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Spain
EDS19 - Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Moldova, Montenegro, The Netherlands, North Macedonia, Romania, and Ukraine	Belgium - Andorra, Armenia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Luxembourg, Moldova, Montenegro, The Netherlands, North Macedonia, Romania, Ukraine
EDS20 - Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden	Sweden - Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden
EDS21 - Albania, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, San Marino, and Timor-Leste	Italy - Albania, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, San Marino
EDS22 - Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia
EDS23 - Russia and Syria	Russia - Russia, Syria
EDS24 - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan	Switzerland - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

From the above table you can see how many of these constituencies there are, and how they are nothing special. You can find the same amount of trivial or primary coverage on practically any of those, for example "The Spanish constituency".—Alalch E. 11:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of representation of countries through the constituencies is an interesting one, but it needs to be treated as a whole, on a broader scale. And this is how it is treated in the sources. For example: Uneven Patterns of Governance: How Developing Countries Are Represented in the IMF. Here's another example, contemplating an "EU quota", through an EU constituency; it mentions "Australian, Belgian, Canadian, English-speaking African, Indonesian, Italian and Nordic constituencies". Additional example: The Internationalization of Postsocialist Economies (Grzegorz W. Kolodko) ("Indeed, why not compose a new IMF and World Bank constituency from Latin American, Eastern European, and CIS nations").

And consistent with this, the only secondary source in the article, the swissinfo.ch article, precisely deals with the broader politics of representation, and is not about the Swiss constituency as a constituency, but about how "Emerging countries and the United States want a wider distribution of seats", and Switzerland's (as a country) response to that. It does not contain WP:SIGCOV of the Swiss constituency.—Alalch E. 12:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched and found it mentioned a lot in books, but always passing mentions and not significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. CT55555(talk) 02:31, 26 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! 20:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BoND[edit]

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

Sources exist that prove this business entity is in existence in New York, United States. Existence is not notability. Based on my evaluation of WP:NCORP, the sources present do not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH.

Shortly after I PROD the article, someone objected it and dropped a NY Times aticle, as an external link. The Hunt is a column in which NY Times is acting in the capacity of a local paper covering house search in NY and the newly added article fails to provide any coverage of BoND as a business. per WP:INHERITORG, coverage on the proprietors do not permeate into their company even if they are individually notable for reasons other than the company in question. Graywalls (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Graywalls (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searches for "BoND" generate a thousands of extraneous hits for "bond". I suggest searching using "Noam Dvir" +"Daniel Rauchwerger", the two partners. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage in the world about one of them individually, or about the pair have very little weight to establish notability for the legal entity; unless significant, in depth, independent coverage and analysis of them with relation to the company they've established, or about the company itself can be found. One has to be broadly circulated. Their house hunting endeavor in their personal life covered in The Hunt column of the New York Times acting in their agency as a local paper don't have any notability weight. The only thing that article did is to be a reliable source that the two men were correspondents for the Haaretz paper at one point. So, it is reliable source to verify that, but not to establish a grain of notability for their company. Graywalls (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BoND is a two-man design firm. It could just have easily been named "Noam Dvir and Daniel Rauchwerger" - we have these sorts of BLPs that cover two closely-connected people together. I think we're wrong to focus on the "legal entity" alone. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified Peoplelikeyoulikeme, the article's creator --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some more sources I found online; I'm sure there are more out there; these 2 men are prominent:

General:
Baird-Remba, Rebecca (2 February 2021). "How Two Israeli Newspaper Reporters Started Their Own Architecture Firm". Commercial Observer. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Reviews of their work:
Reginato, Noni (20 April 2023). "This tranquil New York loft was designed around a striking art collection". Vogue. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Howarth, Dan (8 April 2023). "BoND uses pink scaffolding at New York "embassy" for fashion brand PatBo". Dezeen. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Niland, Josh (16 December 2021). "BoND's new Company Gallery space offers a unique showcase for Queer artists and for themselves". Archinect. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

De Conti, Massimo. "Due architetti e un bilocale a New York trasformato nella casa dei sogni". Corriere della Sera. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Yerebakan, Osman Can (5 January 2022). "BoND Designs Company Gallery's New Lower East Side Location". Interior Design. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Goodman, Wendy (15 March 2021). "How This 1856 Chelsea Parlor-Floor Apartment Got Its Glamour Back". Curbed. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

"Two Architects Bring the Glamour back to their 1856 Chelsea Apartment". Yellowtrace. 3 August 2021. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Howarth, Dan (28 April 2018). "BoND turns dark, divided Chelsea apartment into light-filled home". Dezeen. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Gibson, Eleanor (26 July 2020). "New York hair salon Hawthorne Studio is designed for social distancing". Dezeen. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Quigley, Annie (22 May 2023). "Beneath the Surface: A Railroad Apartment in Manhattan with a Surprising Amount of Storage". The Organized Home. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Quigley, Annie (21 October 2019). "Urban Oasis: A Stone Orchard House in Tel Aviv, Redone by Two Architects". Remodelista. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, here's the link to that New York Times article mentioned above:
Cohen, Joyce (29 June 2017). "For Building Designers, a Customized Apartment". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Personally, I think it's more relevant than Graywalls says but I suggest others take a look and decide for themselves.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The said reference was already present as a source in the article when I stumbled upon it and I don't see the justification why a duplicate was copied into "further reading". This is in The Hunt column section of the NYT which you can see at https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-hunt which solicits people to contact them about their recent home purchase. The select few chosen gets in depth coverage about their home purchase. In the case of these two men, it was about their personal purchase. The article does not touch about the business they own. Any amount of notability the pair accumulated do not pass through to their business. This is made clear by inherited notability guideline which says ownership by notable people do not bestow notability into the business. Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:ARCHITECT item 3:
” The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)”

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you're quoting is not relevant here, because this article is about their company. Similarly, bands or band members qualify through WP:NBAND, architects through WP:ARCHITECT. Architectural firms, recording companies are evaluated through WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more. Some links are to Google translations into English. Starting to look sorta famous in interior design circles:

Beath, Joe; Price, Elizabeth (19 October 2021). "Chelsea Apartment". Never Too Small: Reimagining Small Space Living. Smith Street Books. pp. 113–119. ISBN 9781922754929. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Zamora, Francesc (16 February 2021). 150 of the Best Apartment Ideas. Harper Collins. ISBN 9780063018884. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Johnston, Georgina (29 January 2021). "New York's socially distanced hair salon solution". World Architecture News. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Baird-Remba, Rebecca (1 December 2020). "Swiss Energy Company Axpo Gets Minimalist Midtown Office". Commercial Observer. Retrieved 10 July 2023.
"A Sense of Airiness Defines PatBO's New York Showroom, and Other News". Surface. 11 April 2023. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Gonzalez, Maria Francisca (1 December 2020). "Axpo Holding AG US Headquarters / BoND". ArchDaily. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Gonzalez, Maria Francisca (7 December 2020). "Hair Salon in New York / BoND". ArchDaily. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Bajić, Lorena Majcen (18 May 2023). "Ostavlja bez daha: Evo kako je Liza Tedeschi dizajnirala milijunašev stan u New Yorku". ("It leaves you breathless: Here's how Liza Tedeschi designed a millionaire's apartment in New York"). tportal.hr. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Queiroz, Luiza (3 August 2020). "Este salão de beleza em Nova York foi desenhado para manter o distanciamento social". ("This beauty salon in New York was designed to maintain social distancing"). globo.com (Brazil). Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Talawadekar, Vaishnavi Nayel (27 October 2022). "Step Inside This 470-Square-Foot Cozy Chelsea Studio: BoND infused the 1920s NYC rental with queer cheer". Architectural Digest. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Mahmud, Nurul Husna (31 July 2020). "Tata rias jarak selamat". ("Safe distance cosmetology"). Harian Metro (Malaysia). Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Gonzalez, Maria Francisca (20 December 2018). "Chelsea Apartment / BoND". ArchDaily. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Hunt, Grace Beuley (27 January 2022). "The Design Couple Shaping New Visions Of Home—For All". Luxe Interiors + Design Magazine. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
"At architects". Label Magazine (Poland). 27 May 2021. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Mather, Lindsey (6 September 2017). "You Won't Believe This 550-Square-Foot Apartment Remodel Was Done on the Cheap". Vogue. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Reggev, Kate (21 June 2018). "Vivid Accent Colors Turn This Tiny Abode Into a Dreamy Oasis". Dwell. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Testoni, Paola (10 July 2018). "Buio e Frammentato, questo Appartamento di West Chelsea diventa un Open Space Luminoso". ("Dark and Fragmented, this West Chelsea Apartment becomes a Bright Open Space"). Elle Decor (Italy). Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Salerno, Rita (28 December 2018). "Best of 2018: 10 Modi di Intendere la Parola Restyling". ("Best of 2018: 10 Ways to Understand the Word Restyling: The top ten most viewed renovation projects in 2018"). Elle Decor (Italy). Retrieved 11 July 2023.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you name the two or three out of those that you would suggest for the purpose of establishing business notability so other editors are not burdened with having to go through every single one of them? This is often a significant hardship in deletion discussion in people, product and company articles. Those authored by the same journalist, or from same publication counts as one. Those based on interviews with company personnel or press releases do not pass. WP:ORGIND Graywalls (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, I appreciate your enthusiasm for keeping Wikipedia clear of unsourced articles. However, I think you're overly focused on establishing notability as a business independent of the married couple that are the business: Noam Dvir and Daniel Rauchwerger. There's just two people. BoND is short for "Bureau of Noam & Daniel"

There are no articles that are only about "BoND", a company.

Should we just rename the article "Noam Dvir and Daniel Rauchwerger", turning it into a people article? They've gotten coverage in multiple countries. Also, in their pre-BoND period, they did some noteworthy stuff at Harvard.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly chronicle their journey into forming the company in the background or history section; but those do not contribute towards notability. This article is about their architectural firm, a company. The proprietors chose to play off their names but coverage about them as individuals do not credit towards the business. In Wikipedia, a tuning shop owned by a renowned former race car driver can not piggy back notability off coverage that is not significant about the shop. It does not matter what how the business is named. If the coverage is not for the business, it does not count towards notability. We need CORPDEPTH and AUD passing coverage on the BoND, not about their proprietors outside of the article subject business. Graywalls (talk) 05:13, 11 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!} 23:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the above discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The standard to be met here is NCORP so standard notability is irrelevant. Please can we refocus on that and identify the sources that meet the standard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just randomly selected three articles from the above (picked the clearly international ones) that don't pass WP:NCORP, but there's also a lot of press - what are the best WP:THREE articles please? SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 26 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!} 05:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Blou[edit]

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

Player for the Namibia women's national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Tura Magic FC article, coverage is all about her performance with the club (mostly game match descriptions). [33] Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no article for the women's team to redirect to; there's barely an article for the club at large. -Socccc (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Publications that cover the Namibia Women's Super League haven't provided SIGCOV of Blou. With today's news that NFA failed to register Tura Magic for Cosafa Champions League before deadline, there probably won't be any imminent coverage either. -Socccc (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Socccc: Damn, that must be incredibly frustrating for the players and coaches. JTtheOG (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 25 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!} 05:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sippai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

"Despite the film being completed and a teaser being released in late 2013, the film failed to see a theatrical release" says it all, really. Sent to draft, restored because it's over 90 days old, frequently namechecked as a potential AfD candidate, it's time this 2013 article about a film unreleased in 2013 and since was consigned to the flames of Mount Doom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Tamil Nadu. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFO and WP:NFF. APK whisper in my ear 09:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's resumed filming again [34], and about a dozen other stories confirming the same in semi-RS sources. See the news link above. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a 2017 story!!! It's taken longer to film - just this time around - than LOTR if we are to take those reports seriously... There's another lot from 2021. Given a track record of 10 years of empty reports, why don't we wait until it's actually, you know, released? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IT's still SIGCOV. This might be like the last Duke Nukem game, vaporware for 20 yrs or more. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. You can partly shoot the film, but release it. Production seems unnotable. Should have included it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puthiya Mugam (unreleased film). DareshMohan (talk) 17:48, 25 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 11:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Dashtizadeh[edit]

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

NN pilot. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Iran. UtherSRG (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the two linked sources in the article are passing mentions. However, it would be reasonably likely to find sigcov in a non-digital Farsi source. —siro χ o 10:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have generally kept articles on flying aces, who are likely to have reasonable coverage in non-digital sources (in Farsi, as Siroxo says). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I Do added another source (digital english source):source no.2/ articles on flying aces are kept as allways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia Mannerheim (talk • contribs) 12:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence the gentleman was a flying ace. Searcing the first ('Razoux 2015' is hardly helpful) and third source for the subject returns no result The second source, a Pakistani blog, gives a passing mention of the subject sourced to the Wikipedia list of Iranian flying aces article which itself is sourced to our friend M. Razoux. The fourth source is a bunch of old photos of pilots in which the subject is merely named in a group caption. The fifth, Mehr News Agency, source does not mention the subject. So in total, we have here a whole bunch of precisely nothing and it needs to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see these: Razoux, Pierre (2019), Le siècle des As (1915-1988): Une autre histoire de l'aviation (in French), Place des éditeurs, ISBN 978-2-262-04827-3. and Razoux 2015, Table 1.3: Victories by Iranian pilots (3 or more victories), p. 571.--Patricia (Talk) 13:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Also there is no policy that aces are automatically notable, rather becoming an ace usually brings significant coverage which then satisfies GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing. Other then a mention in the chart in the book above, nothing found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No inherent notability in being a flying ace. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's interesting that if this ace was British or American (or even German) we'd have a flood of keep votes and it wouldn't have a chance of being deleted. Consensus in the past has clearly been to keep flying aces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my point above, there is no evidence the gentleman was a flying ace... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject lacks inherent notability as a flying ace, and without proper sourcing, it fails to meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO. SaurabhSaha 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp

Agree . thats the point u mention.--Patricia (Talk) 14:00, 28 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!} 04:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Lightbourn Strong[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that would satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Nothing on ProQuest, Newspapers Archive, or JSTOR. APK whisper in my ear 04:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the lack of refs, the article itself paints the picture of a non-notable Presbyterian minister who pastored non-notable churches in the early 19th century.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a decent man but not especially notable. But a comment, once again that pernicious little note "this article incorporates public domain material from..." conceals the fact that this article is public domain material from. Apart from the first sentence, it is simply, word-for-word, a copy of an obituary published by Yale. We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia, summarising multiple sources, not just another mirror site acting as a dumping-ground/archive for copies of bits of other sites and documents. Elemimele (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should generally evaluate the value of the information in an article when deciding whether to delete or seek an ATD. Given that this seems to all come from the Yale source, let's take advantage and do a minimal merge into William Strong (Pennsylvania judge). There's a sentence or two of value to the early life section of that subject's biography. —siro χ o 09:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Connecticut, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a one-page-long biography, here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Yale biography that the article is built from. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are two distinct publications both by Yale. —siro χ o 04:51, 26 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!*} 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M. J. Rosenberg[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist and politico, who has written broadly, but doesn't seem to have much WP:SIGCOV per a WP:BEFORE. Also doesn't seem to pass WP:JOURNALIST: he's not considered a "notable figure" in the Middle East discussion, nor have his works "won significant critical attention" Longhornsg (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. He's quoted as a spokesperson or expert on many articles, in addition to being a writer for publications like The Nation and Al Jazeera, and authoring a book. I found articles specifically about him in The Jerusalem Post 1 and 2, The Washington Post, The Forward 1 and 2, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Politico, The Huffington Post (op-ed), The New Yorker, National Review, etc. APK whisper in my ear 05:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above, although I would also like to comment that some of that information really should just be added to the article. --Dynamo128 (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- missing information is a reason to add that information, not delete an article. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 11:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Clear WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 13:31, 25 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Eskandari[edit]

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

NN pilot. Article had significant promo issues, but author requested AFD. Removed promo material. Unable to determine validity of claims. UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Iran. UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides confirmation of him flying, the sources don't prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. I believe that original creator doesn't understand notability as this is one of a number of their articles that has come to AFD recently. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are wrong--Patricia (Talk) 12:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep Actually appears to pass WP:GNG even with the sources in the article. 2 sources add--Patricia (Talk) 12:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I've added two more - British sources in English fwiw. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources added by @Phil Bridger. Okoslavia (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like we may have a case of WP:HEY; in addition to seeking further editors' input, editors who have argued for deletion are invited to reaffirm or revise their !votes in response to the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to say keep on the basis that there appear to be Persian references that support the idea that he is/was a prominent Iranian aviator and that this would be enough to show inclusion if he had a different nationality. That said, some more tidying is necessary to ensure a neutral tone. JMWt (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What Rosguill said.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This article sources doesn't prove WP:GNG and WP:V also. ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 04:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see the Persian (Farsi) article for more potential refs: fa:محمود اسکندری.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

these refs are good enough--Patricia (Talk) 13:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::added two refs: in english:no:3:here and no.4 here--Patricia (Talk) 11:13, 30 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!} 04:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Asian Games closing ceremony[edit]

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

Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Article was draftified to Draft:2022 Asian Games closing ceremony but then recreated by the author. – bradv 04:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Draft exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt way WP:TOOSOON for an article, draft already exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt -- Draft exists, and another user (Mickaion1990) has started deleting the AfD template. Let's CheckUser them and see if they're KimSumi21's sock. T3h 1337 b0y 20:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I was already opening an SPI before I even noticed the overlap on the draft. Meters (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt since we have a sock on this now. TOOSOON. Meters (talk) 22:31, 31 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!} 07:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GRICES[edit]

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

The only reference for this organization is a RFP (Request For Proposal) and does not discuss this government office in any depth. I did search for additional sources to establish notability. The two sources provided on the Talk page both failed verification. Created on 25 September 2007 JoeNMLC (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Science, Technology, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no clear evidence of notability. IP editor posted a two sources on the article talk page, but neither is usable. Nothing relevant shows up on Google. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:17, 22 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!} 04:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per WP:GNG and it's not a surprise that no reliable sources available.--BoraVoro (talk) 13:54, 28 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 convincing analysis of the claimed sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul The Trombonist[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. Was removing quite a few unreliable sources but do not see any left that show notability. Also did a WP:BEFORE and unable to find significant coverage in anything reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny anecdote about voice recognition [35] and him, but that's about all there is for coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject was featured on fox news as a notable musician ^[1] Article feature in International Musician magazine as notable musician ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpaper50673 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC) — Sandpaper50673 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Musician was member of Glenn Miller Orchestra a band of notability, performed with Arethra Franklin and then went on to launch solo career ^[3] Interviewed on Forbes about this career ^[4] Playing trombone on a major national television broadcast. Capitol 4th Television Special ^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefish5021 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC) — Littlefish5021 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on info provided above, he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Criterion 6 is met for playing in Glenn Miller Orchestra. Criterion 12 is met for being on major TV news show. Possibly also he meets Criterion 4 for being on worldwide tours with Glenn Miller Orchestra.Hkkingg (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get this back on the log, note TK.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following a discussion on User_talk:Joyous!#Paul_the_Trombonist and User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_The_Trombonist, @Joyous!: indicated their willingless for this to be reopened rather than a DRV kickback and fourteen days. I offered to be the relister for tech reasons. Courtesy @CNMall41 and Hkkingg: who contributed to that discussion. While I didn't see a consensus at the time of closing, I don't have an opinion at the moment as it's too late in the evening so this is a procedural relist. Star Mississippi 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can see why this is a difficult one to evaluate. For WP:MUSICBIO#C4, They've been on an international concert tour, and we have a single non-trivial sentence of independent coverage from a source that then quickly shifts into an interview. [36] One of the first gigs Paul Nowell landed just out of Berklee College in 2007 was a world tour with the Glenn Miller Orchestra. As a reliable publication, stating it in their own editorial voice, we should treat that sentence as independent, but I can understand hesitation. Also note that "trivial coverage" is defined in a few different ways, but not on this page for a biography, so but my personal go-to in this case is the definition tied to WP:BASIC. This is not close to a database entry, nor a mention in passing, so it is non-trivial.

I don't think WP:MUSICBIO#C12 is met, because the Fox clip seems to be a local broadcast, and the other clip doesn't feature the subject. I don't think WP:MUSICBIO#C6 is met, because one must be a "reasonably prominent" member of 2 notable ensembles, which would only pass for Glenn Miller, not Aretha. If people disagree on C4 above, then it is quite possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. —siro χ o 04:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the source is reliable and accurate, he was part of an orchestra that toured, not the person who was on tour. If we considered C4 to include all members, then we could create a page for all members of the orchestra who received a sentence in a source saying they were part of the tour. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, just want to be clear that I don't disagree with your request to reopen this, I think it's a borderline case at best. I'll explain my interpretation in depth. I am not trying to be argumentative, just clear.

If there were a source that had a sentence "A, B, C, D, E.... all went on a world tour", or worse, "The members of Glenn Miller Orchestra went on a world tour", I would consider that trivial by the policy of BASIC. If hypothetically each member of the orchestra had a separate news piece about them that individually confirmed that they did a world tour in a nontrivial one sentence statement as part of an article about them, then sure, they would all qualify. I'm guessing the reason the criteria landed here is that, in practice, that never happens. Not for jazz orchestras, not for classical orchestras, not even for the Polyphonic Spree. If it were to happen, then it would indeed be some special signifier of notability for each of the people who did that international tour.

I hope that helps explain my interpretation. —siro χ o 06:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does clarify your position. However, I think you are interpreting the guideline wrong. The guideline would apply to the orchestra, not individual members. That's why we don't create pages for everyone in a band that has gone on tour. Even if it did, the guideline calls for "non-trivial" coverage which in this case I would say a single sentence in a single source about being part of an orchestra that toured would be "trivial." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently written and sourced. There is really nothing here that works as a substantial source for an article. BD2412 T 01:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some more citations that are not currently in the article: link1 ^[1], link2 ^[2], link3 ^[3], link4 ^[4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpaper50673 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

— Sandpaper50673 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 13:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the new sources provided by above commenter are valid and good. International Trombone Association Journal has deep coverage. Youtube video is from MSN and should count towards notability. Mashable article would count towards notability. Forbes unfortunately is not unacceptable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Naomijeans (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MSN YouTube video is about as garbage a piece of journalism as journalism gets. Also, I note that both that video and the Mashable piece are about a "viral video" on the topic of texting while on the toilet, which is not currently mentioned in the subject's article at all. BD2412 T 16:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MSN is garbage???? since when is one of the most reliable news organizations garbage? This is actually MSNBC and according to WP:RSP MSNBC is a reliable source. According to WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" I have posted more sources below that are in depth. Naomijeans (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC. Naomijeans (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a list of the reliable sources you feel meet BASIC?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC says that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" Some of the ones below are actually in depth

International Trombone Association Journal - in depth

internationalmusician.org 2nd article - in depth

projectrevolver.org/ - in depth

latfusa.com/ -in depth

Youtube video is from MSN - about a 30 second intro on him.

Mashable

dansr.com in depth Naomijeans (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you and I disagree on the meaning of "in-depth" and "reliable source." Just a few examples here: WP:MASHABLE must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, the writer is a sports journalist writing about a musician which seems odd so I would not treat it as reliable. Dansr is a marketing platform so not sure how this would ever be notable since it exists to promote artists. Revolver does not show a byline for writer and it appears the site is open source (no editorial oversight) so it is also not reliable. The YouTube video is his video with an intro from MSN which is more routine coverage and not in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 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 01:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Cordero[edit]

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

One appearance for the Puerto Rico national football team. Does not appear to have continued playing after his college career. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Puerto Rico. JTtheOG (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 25 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenaz Swain[edit]

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

Draftify as only 18 years old. Four official appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was the most I found. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bahamas. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: What's your opinion on drafifying the article? 05:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition to that. Giant Snowman 18:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for Draftifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I couldn't find any significant coverage in my BEFORE search, but at age 18, this footballer could get more coverage in the near future. Jogurney (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - the source that the nominator linked has a bit of coverage but not yet enough for an article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 25 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. Star Mississippi 15:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

L.N. Tallur[edit]

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

No WP:RS citations and the person shows no notability whatsoever. Purely reads like a resume. 2nd citation does not open and the award is also not a notable award. Totally fails WP:BIO Trolli Onida (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, South Korea, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. The Škoda Prize is no longer offered since Skoda withdrew its sponsorship after the first three years, which is why the prize's website is dead. The Internet Archive has several archives of the prize's website, though, and I think the prize is notable. This might be a good time to encourage anyone considering nominating an article for deletion to do WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed ALL the self-referential embedded links to the artist's site. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article was created by SPAs User:Nature Morte and User:Nature Morte 1. Long gone. No attempt to keep the article up to date. The single citable award of the Škoda Prize does not establish notability WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WomenArtistUpdates fails WP:NARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We also have to look at the general notability criteria. Tallur is also substantively covered in the following independent sources:

The article could certainly do with additional high-quality content, however. Agree that winning a prize does not confer notability – we have to look at coverage in reliable sources. Enervation (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is contentious not because of the number of sources present, but because of the notability of the artist despite the number of sources. He doesn't meet any of the criteria for the guideline that applies to creative professionals and hence the article should be deleted.Trolli Onida (talk) 13:57, 14 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!} 02:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just not seeing the notability with the "prize" won, the rest isn't much to go on. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the existing references and further available sources mentioned above denote both notability and coverage. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existing sources are either passing mentions, native advertising, or notification of wining the the Škoda Prize, which we seem to agree isn't enough to confer notability. The new sources added to this discussion, but not added to the article, are very puffy pieces, and in the third instance (https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/conversations-on-the-fringe-814943) an interview. I don't see that the subject has been proven to be notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, on the face of it, an Indian art prize so prominent that its being awarded to the article subject gets a full article in the notably non-India-centric Wall Street Journal would seem very likely to be a well-known and significant award or honor, satisfying ANYBIO. Maybe there's a reason why appearances are misleading here, but it hasn't been expressed in this discussion. Second, setting that aside, we have at least two articles in very highly respected periodicals (WSJ + The Hindu) that appear to be independent of the article subject and cover him sufficiently directly and in sufficient depth that no original research is needed to extract the content. (I think it's important to separate the question of whether coverage prompted by the Skoda Prize meets the threshold for NBASIC from whether the prize meets ANYBIO.) We also have this piece in the Hindustan Times that is wholly about the article subject's works though somewhat short on biographical detail. That seems ample for NBASIC. Finally, while there is some promotional abuse in the history of this article, there appears to be none in its present or foreseeable future, the creators having moved on, so I don't think that is likely to affect our ability to provide encyclopedic coverage. In sum, it seems to me that even if the article subject does not meet ANYBIO he meets NBASIC. -- Visviva (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but I'm seeing No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he has an WP:ANYBIO pass with the Skoda prize. CT55555(talk) 02:39, 25 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 01:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Cintron[edit]

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

Three appearances for the Puerto Rico national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found negligible coverage like this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Puerto Rico, and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 25 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 Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (soundtrack). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Spider-Verse[edit]

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

This article is an unnecessary fork/split of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack), where this information belongs. The music of the Spider-Verse films has not received enough recognition and commentary to justify a standalone article, and the information in this article can easily be merged into a new "Background" section on the soundtrack articles. It is unusual for film series to have a "Music of ..." article unless it is a massive, long-running franchise whose music has been closely analyzed, such as Music of Star Wars, Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. This is not the case for Spider-Verse, which has so far only had two installments. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Comics and animation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merge relevant info into Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack). Redirect to the former. -- ZooBlazer^talk 02:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack); redirect to the former. BD2412 T 02:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack). Redirect to the former as it was for the first installment. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Not received enough recognition and commentary"? According to what? The sourcing is there establishing both recognition for the music, as well as ample commentary. I left a few sources in the reference ideas template on the talk page because there is actually even more to pull from, from those sources to include on here (in terms of commentary). I haven't had too much free time this month to expand the article, but will try my best to do so this week. Also "enough recognition" is subjective already, but there is again sourcing that helps establish that the music from these films has earned recognition. ("Sunflower" is literally the highest-charting RIAA single ever; I also found this source explaining how one character's theme from the sequel's score is a common fixture in memes). Will add this source when expanding the article this week. Also feel like the "unusual" factor of "Music of [film series]" articles isn't really relevant in a deletion discussion. Like what does it actually matter that only Star Wars, MCU, LOTR have those articles? Could actually just be editors glossing over valid articles to create. Honing in on "Music of [film series]" articles is also a disservice here, and makes it seem like we don't have a good amount of "Music of..." articles in general here on Wikipedia. They're just not all from film series. Some are from anime, or from video games series, or individual games. Or television series. Or webcomics. Soulbust (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Soulbust (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough content that cannot be reasonably incorporated into the regular soundtrack articles, so a standalone article is not justified. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per rationales above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and those above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two short films that exist and a third feature film is already in production, I think its fair to assume that there could be expansion of this article.★Trekker (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could add a Music section to Spider-Man in film and then redirect this there, as well, assuming there would be enough contents from those shorts on music alone. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is enough background or reception info on the music of those two short films, and editors are free to work on the article in draftspace until it comes a time when it is appropriate for mainspace (currently, it's not). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article discusses the music for each film separately, so I don't see the need for a standalone article. Pamzeis (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Disambiguate this page, page for the franchise still in draft (Draft:Spider-Verse (franchise)) so soundtrack not needed. Redirect would be ambiguous as could target either film's soundtrack. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 14:58, 30 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 Windsor Beauties#List of Beauties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hon. Frances Brooke[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Seems mostly known for being related to other people. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom - the 'notability' seems to be inherited through subject's relatives Karnataka (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windsor Beauties#List of Beauties - I have not been able to find any significant coverage apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Her main claim to notability seems to be her Windsor Beauties portrait, so it would be an apt target for redirection. Some minor additional info about her may be added as long as it is within scope there and sourced. ~UN6892 ^t_c 18:23, 11 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!} 22:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, otherwise redirect to Windsor Beauties#List of Beauties per Username6892. I'm not familiar with The Fair Ladies of Hampton Court but it was at least published by a major publisher (Little, Brown & Co.) and gives the appearance of representing fairly thorough and sober research. It devotes five pages to a biography of Brooke, which seems like very substantial coverage to me. And then there's this approximately one-page note in Notes and Queries by William Francis Prideaux, a biographical researcher of some note in his day. Add in the lesser coverage to be found here and there and I think there's a reasonable amount of encyclopedic material to work with. (And to the extent this might still be a borderline case under NBASIC, while Dryden is certainly not a reliable source, such an indicator of contemporary significance should IMO weigh somewhat in favor of an article.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've got a keep, a redirect, and a delete... relisting for more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:27, 25 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!} 07:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Berger (cinematographer)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NFILMMAKER UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here is one possible source Marineland. There is also a mention in White Zombie: Anatomy of a Horror Film. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:35, 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!} 22:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a second go around
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of mentions in books, but nothing in-depth to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, including the sources from SailingInABathTub above. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:56, 25 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!} 01:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't It Now?[edit]

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

Non-notable album, no reviews found, few if any critical discussions of the album in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm a bit concerned about some of the details of this nomination - the album isn't out until September, so there aren't going to be reviews yet. And there's already a dedicated WP:RSMUSIC-approved source (https://exclaim.ca/amparticle/animal_collective_announce_new_album_isnt_it_now) in the article so I don't know about the claim of there being no RS coverage either. That aside, at this exact moment, it does seem to be a bit WP:TOOSOON to meet the GNG. But the album was also seemingly just announced today? So probably draftify it if no more coverage arises during the run of the AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The album tracklist was announced 7/24, but it has been confirmed since 2022 when the previous album was released. They were both recorded in 2021. The 2nd single from this new album will be released tomorrow 7/26. The first single was released last month. BRIAN0918 18:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revising my stance to Keep - as I suspected, RS coverage was coming. Plenty of RSMUSIC sources wrote dedicated articles about the album, and I don't believe in redirecting or drafting when there's already coverage like this. It's still short, but its far more likely to be better developed in the mainspace than tucked away in the draftspace. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until the album releases per WP:TOOSOON. The source linked above is RS but definitely WP:MILL, but its existence makes be believe that there will be more RS once it releases. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my !vote to Keep, as there are now 11 reliable refs clearly showing notability. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per JML. Worth noting that you can also boldly move articles to draftspace without need for an AfD rather than just deleting them. I would recommend it for upcoming releases, especially ones that are freshly announced and have obvious potential for a good article in the future. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree that more reliable sources will be available once the album is released. Charsaddian (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep after seeing the addition of more sources. Charsaddian (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article now includes 11 refs that are listed at WP:RSMUSIC, as well as some critical reception for the single, and background info. BRIAN0918 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Classic example of what's know as a WP:REFBOMB. All of the reliable sources on the page are mainly saying the same thing with some slight variation or small bits of added commentary. This is not what makes a notable subject. I stand by my vote above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REFBOMBing is more about misleading through passing mentions or sourcing content irrelevant/off-topic content. Its valid editorial philosophy to take exception to the fact that they're all announcements with minimal difference in content, but it's not really refbombing per se. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believed the main criticism to be the lack of reliable sources. So that was my primary focus. The next criticisms were lack of content, so those sections have been and are being expanded where possible. BRIAN0918 17:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has about as much detail as can be expected for a just-announced album, and is absolutely "notable" by virtue of being the work of an artist with such cultural cachet. I'm not sure what the issue is with it existing. Musiceasel (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with the statements by Sergecross73 and Musiceasel. There is sufficient reliable independent sources covering the album that it satisfies basic notability requirements. Mburrell (talk) 03:54, 27 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 00:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Records[edit]

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

notability failure. music/band notability #5 is not a consensus approved method of evaluating record label business category and preliminary before AfD check revealed a mention level coverage in LA Times and inclusion in directory entries in books showing that this is a PO BOX based business. Fails WP:SIGCOV Graywalls (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Business, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated in another AfD, NMUSIC5 applies to performers, not labels. I cannot find anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as the history behind the label may be notable with not online sources possible available. --BoraVoro (talk) 08:39, 28 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 00:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gazdic[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet general notability guidelines, and has only played a relatively low number of games in a non-major league. PK T(alk) 00:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find anything beyond databases, primary sources and routine coverage, and the subject played only a handful of games in a single season in a lesser-tier pro league. Fails both the GNG and NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 01:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. 2001:569:74E3:4000:7834:EE67:D720:48E7 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 43 games in the EBEL, and a handful in the Croatian and Slovenian leagues was not likely enough to pass notability before that was tightened up recently, and there doesn't seem to be anything else conferring notability for Gazdic here. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:37, 30 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] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8KId4-CJ8g

[2] ttps://internationalmusician.org/paul-nowell/

[3] ttps://internationalmusician.org/paul-nowell/

[4] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanrobinson/2019/08/16/choose-niche-business-idea/?sh=5ac1a554265b

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9j1BTHkXrI

[6] ttps://issuu.com/joep1965/docs/paul_the_trombonist_international_trombone_associ

[7] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jOy3lyCwvo

[8] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanrobinson/2019/08/16/choose-niche-business-idea/?sh=1470a052265b

[9] ttps://mashable.com/archive/phone-on-the-toilet-video

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]