Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 16	October 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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!} 23:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Ross Ventures[edit]

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

Nominated per IP userrequest: Non-notable fund. All sources indicate only the investment rounds of this fund and are news. Many of the sources duplicate each other and are clippings from interviews, and the contents are press releases. 2A00:1FA1:4347:268B:8C87:6A2C:79F4:A69A (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by: UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does lack of references of a source make it not worthy? New to wiki. Teddy012 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For good information on what is needed, see both the WP:golden rule and WP:Notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this fails to meet CORPDEPTH. The non-press releases/business churnalism sources, like the NYT piece, refer to Fort Ross Ventures only slightly and in the context of Russian funding; it's not significantly about Ventures themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:05, 23 October 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 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Water jet (recreation)[edit]

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

seems unlikely this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Geography. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hard to find significant coverage on this particular niche device, but the statement "it is also used in agriculture" suggests the author of the article wasn't exactly splitting hairs.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to water cannon, this subject is basically a subtype. - Indefensible (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wholly unsourced (for 16.71 years!) without any evidence of improvability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:30, 22 October 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 14:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Porter[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and sports-related notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Horse racing, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Star Porter's sire The Porter (horse) is indeed notable but on balance Star Porter doesn't seem to be. Limited sources but taking the following source as reliable, Star Porter is not featured as a notable progeny.http://www.americanclassicpedigrees.com/the-porter.html. Based on this, I don't believe a redirect/merge is required to the sire and this article can be deleted. Also, the races won by Star Porter in the article don't seem notable as none appear to have wikilinked articles. Rupples (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Woodward (actor)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and actor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 10 October 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, California, and Oklahoma. UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly tagged because nobody knew how to find the sources. From the AFI (American Film Institute) catalogue, I was able to link the list of his films. Over a period of 32 years, he made a lot of films. FYI, The American Film Institute was founded by a 1965 presidential mandate to establish a national arts organization to preserve the legacy of American film heritage. The problem with searching for sources on the actor Bob Woodward, is that the same-named The Washington Post reporter of the Watergate era keeps coming up. The actor Bob Woodward was indeed in all five seasons of the Gene Autry Show, which I found a source for. Although ImDB is not technically used as a source, a glance at his page will show you that he worked for decades in the medium of television. Hopefully, another Wikipedia editor will find more sourcing. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that he fails GNG and NACTOR. He was in half of the episodes of both The Gene Autry Show and Buffalo Bill, Jr., and had named roles in large number of films. He was a staple in Gene Autry's productions, and a stunt double for Autry, Buck Jones, and few others. He's also in the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pass in WP:NACTOR Criteria, have significant roles in many films or drama Worldiswide (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White House debate competition hoax[edit]

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

This did not receive enough coverage to justify a Wikipedia page. Some kid made a hoax that got a little press coverage. WP:ONEEVENT definitely applies here. Angryapathy (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems well-sourced. Neutral in tone, I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Events, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Mass media in Bangladesh. There's no reason why this one-off event with no lasting effects should have its own article. The target article, on the other hand, could benefit from a few sentences about this as part of a broader coverage of the topic's history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 17 October 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 Kiedrowice. RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiedrowice (hamlet)[edit]

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

This was prodded by Edward-Woodrow but de-prodded by Espresso Addict.

The location for this "hamlet" given in the article is the local forestry office for the village of Kiedrowice (see here), the centre of which is located a short distance away and for which we already have an article.

As such this article is self-evidently just a duplication.

Looking at the 2012 location-names law, this lists a "forest settlement" (osada leśna) called Kiedrowice in Lipnica as well as a "village" (wieś) with the same name also in Lipnica - there is no reason given here not to believe these are not exactly the same thing, included as a clerical artefact in this 1500+ page long document. The relevant content of the 2015 law is identical. The 1746-page-long postal directory lists two addresses called "Kiedrowice" - Kiedrowice and Kiedrowice (Karcz) (i.e., remnant, or "stub", though there does appear to be another hamlet called Karcz in the general area with a different PNA), evidently the same location as they have the same PNA. None of these have any data giving the actual location of these places (which begs the question of where the location in the article comes from), nor their population.

A WP:BEFORE search is meaningless as results are found for the village. The Polish article is identical except that it identifies it as a "forest settlement".

Normally it would be reasonable to propose merging, but there is nothing to merge here since the details are essentially the same (same post-code, some other details).

This is what happens when articles are generated at speed from sources that do no more than list names in a geographical hierarchy - the creator spent about 4 minutes on this article and I've now spent ~30 minutes doing this review. FOARP (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This same user has created many substubs on locations in Poland that follow this model, giving nothing more than a generic statement regarding the location, and then a bit of database information in the infobox, all based off one or two census sources. FOARP, was there some kind of discussion at one point regarding banning GEOLAND articles (or doing something, at least) that are based solely on such sources? I BLAR'd the ones a found at NPP, but Joe Roe reverted those edits, saying that my reasoning was subjective. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've argued that one to death and I don't think we're going to see much movement for a while at least. What I'd like to know is where the location data came from, as it's not in any of the sources in the article. FOARP (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for starting a deletion discussion and doing the research. Could we just redirect Kiedrowice (hamlet) to Kiedrowice? Or if you are certain the sources for the hamlet are actually talking about the same place, they could be added to the village, ie merging. Then if someone does come up with a source that shows the forest settlement is distinct and tells us something meaningful about it, it can easily be resurrected. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s nothing to merge here as the content is the same, nor is there any point in a redirect for something nobody is going to search (EDIT: particularly because Kiedrowice is not defined as a hamlet, which in Polish is a przysiółek, but as a forest settlement or osada leśna, so the title is incorrect). The article-content in its entirety is "Kiedrowice is a hamlet in the Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland, within the Gmina Lipnica, Bytów County.", which is identical to content already in the "village" article except that it says "Kiedrowice [kʲɛdrɔˈvit͡sɛ] is a village in Gmina Lipnica, Bytów County, Pomeranian Voivodeship, in northern Poland." There's a post-code in the info-box that I've added to the "village" article, the references are repetitious but appear to say the same thing as the "village" article, but I've added them all the same, so what's left to merge? FOARP (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could get into attribution issues if you've taken content from Kiedrowice (hamlet) and used it in another article?? Not an area I have any expertise in. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no attribution issue with taking content from one page and adding it to another, that already recited essentially the same information (i.e., that Kiedrowice is a village in Gmina Lipnica). FOARP (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'll probably start an AfD on pl wiki (if I do so I'll link it here if this is still open) but I don't see how this meets GNG. Per [2] it is not a hoax (it exists, classified as osada leśna, separate from the village) but what can be said about it? I fear, nothing. WP:NOPAGE seems to be strong here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Piotrus.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:10, 23 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

山州[edit]

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

Page doe not meet WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. -- Primium (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Primium (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There's no policy forbidding disambiguation pages with titles in non-English scripts. They're a logical extension of redirects in languages other than English when there's more than one primary topic and we have hundreds in Chinese alone. Suggest you withdraw this and related AfDs. – Joe (talk) 16:54, 11 October 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, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, such disambiguation pages (which are not articles) has been much discussed in the past and is accepted practice. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Membership in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (384) is not a valid deletion rationale. Not sure how else we'd disambiguate names of subjects that are transliterated differently depending on the native language of the subject, but a new process would take a sitewide RfC. Folly Mox (talk) 12:16, 18 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

板橋[edit]

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

Page doe not meet WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. -- Primium (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Primium (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There's no policy forbidding disambiguation pages with titles in non-English scripts. They're a logical extension of redirects in languages other than English when there's more than one primary topic and we have hundreds in Chinese alone. Suggest you withdraw this and related AfDs. – Joe (talk) 16:56, 11 October 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, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, such disambiguation pages (which are not articles) has been much discussed in the past and is accepted practice. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Membership in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (384) is not a valid deletion rationale. Not sure how else we'd disambiguate names of subjects that are transliterated differently depending on the native language of the subject, but a new process would take a sitewide RfC. Folly Mox (talk) 12:17, 18 October 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 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Study Breaks[edit]

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

The first source on this page is the magazine's own about page, and the third is a press release on a PR website. Neither of those provide notability, and while the Paisano article (archived) does, it alone does not show notability for this article. I couldn't find more coverage, though the problems with searching for a news publication with a generic name like this are not lost on me, but if there indeed isn't more coverage available then I'm afraid this fails the notability pass and should be deleted. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Entertainment, and Texas. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 October 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 Move and redirect‎ , which I will do manually. Please tweak if needed Star Mississippi 00:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Na Górze[edit]

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

A mass-created article created by Kotbot, a deactivated bot.

The name means literally "at the top". From the map it appears to be a farm in the village of Gliśno Wielkie. Notably the GMaps address given for this location is in that village. The only source given in the article is the TERYT database, but I could not locate an entry for this.

Searching this Polish postal directory I also could not find an entry for this place in Lipnica, Bytów. This 2015 law on Polish place names (1500+ pages long) describes it as "Part of Gliśno Wielkie" (część wsi Gliśno Wielkie), not as a settlement (osada), so the article is inaccurate.

Exactly none of these sources describes this place as ever having been a populated settlement, as such it fails WP:GEOLAND. Merging to Gliśno Wielkie is meaningless as no information is included in the article to merge. Redirecting the Polish phrase for "at the top" to a random village in rural Poland makes no sense. That leaves deletion. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "Redirecting the Polish phrase for "at the top" to a random village in rural Poland makes no sense"? That's the name of the place and it's part of the village. In English such a phrase could be a "random" song or album. There are other places so disambiguation would be more useful. Peter James (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Peter, there are 15 different locations with the same name listed on PL Wiki, a film, and a rock-band - why would anyone be looking for this? Not even address of the location is listed as being Na Górze - though the postal directory lists a (similarly non-notable) address in Rybnik. This title falls into at least two classes of un-needed redirect:
  - 1) The title is a Polish-language adjective ("topmost"/"top") with no actual affinity to the subject. See WP:AFFINITY.
    2) The title is WP:UNHELPFUL since it raises unrealistic expectations - we do not redirect every named location and building in a village to the village. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Settlements in a parish are typically redirected to the parish if there is not enough content for a separate article. WP:AFFINITY would only be a reason not to redirect it to an article with no connection to the language or add an article with no connection to that language to a disambiguation page. Whether a place is in a postal directory are not always relevant - in the UK some villages and large suburbs can be missing entirely and a small village can be included three times. Peter James (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn’t a settlement, though - that would be listed as an osada. This is simply a place-name, one that is essentially an adjective. FOARP (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move then Redirect. Per pl wiki and TERYT, this is just part of a village. I don't see how this has a stand-alone notability. Will start pl wiki AFD soon. PS. First, move this to Na Górze (Gliśno Wielkie), per pl wiki. Note that per pl wiki and TERYT, there is a dozen or so different villages have identically named "parts". The current name should be a disambig like pl:Na Górze. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Move then redirect per Piotrus.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:10, 23 October 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. Once SPA input is properly discounted (and given that the SPAs apparently do not understand what constitutes reliable and in-depth coverage for purposes of determining notability), there is a clear consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 15:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State of Reason[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No (zero) independent sources and apparently available only on Kindle. The article creator and main contributor appears to have a COI as well. RegentsPark (comment) 21:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Article lists three independent sources.

Three of the books in the series are available in paperback. One of the books is also being sold by Barnes and Noble.

The Article is linked to by two other Articles. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the books listed in the Article are also listed on Google Books. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend KEEP. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this editor has tried to add a mention of this book to the George Washington Bridge article without any reliable secondary sources, then called a removal of this content "vandalism". The fact that I couldn't find any secondary coverage of this book at all, while trying to find a source for this addition, is concerning. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this editor deleted multiple segments of the Article en-mass simultaneously of discrete instances of In Culture which were referenced. Explanation given by editor was only "remove cruft". 68.2.61.80 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I retained everything that did have a reference; the only other paragraph that I removed was not referenced, either (it only contains a inline external link). The point is, I was trying to find a secondary source to justify retaining the mention of Loss of Reason in the GWB article but was unable to do so. In fact, I can't find any secondary sources for this book anywhere (a Google search only uncovers unrelated things which use that exact phrase). – Epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 secondary sources for books in the State Of Reason series (including the first book in the series "Loss Of Reason"), listed right at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I did find this source: [3], but that might be a WP:SPS and I don't know if the author counts as a subject-matter expert. All other sources found were either not independent or were trying to sell me the ebook or a print copy. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking the "Find Sources / Google / Books" link above (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22State+of+Reason%22) brings up a list of books. Contained within this list, at number 9, is the first book in the series, "Loss Of Reason". 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link it turned up: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Loss_of_Reason/G-0YswEACAAJ?hl=en

This Google Books link is independent and offers nothing for sale.

The entire series including links to all 7 books in the series can be found here: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inauthor:%22Miles+A.+Maxwell%22&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2mO3J5OyBAxWTOTQIHQgVCg8QmxMoAHoECB8QAg

The web pages linked to are independent and offer nothing for sale, but some do offer previews of the books. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Clicking the "Find Sources / Google / Books" link ABOVE (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22State+of+Reason%22+-wikipedia) brings up a list of books. Contained within this list, at number 9, is the first book in the series, "Loss Of Reason". This is the link that turned up: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Loss_of_Reason/G-0YswEACAAJ?hl=en

This Google Books link is independent and offers nothing for sale.

The entire series including links to all 7 books in the series can be found here: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inauthor:%22Miles+A.+Maxwell%22&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2mO3J5OyBAxWTOTQIHQgVCg8QmxMoAHoECB8QAg

The web pages linked to are independent and offer nothing for sale, but some do offer previews of the books. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC) 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Notability (books), the book needs to be the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Mere inclusion in a list of books is insufficient (see note 1 on the page linked above). Please also review our conflict of interest guidelines. RegentsPark (comment) 02:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the table below. I couldn't find any better sources.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Good Reads	interview	WP:GOODREADS	✘ No
Good Reads 2		WP:GOODREADS	✘ No
Google Books 1		? Google collects information from many sources. Including WP:SPS and Wikipedia itself. No way of knowing.	✘ No
Google Books 2		? Google collects information from many sources. Including WP:SPS and Wikipedia itself. No way of knowing.	✘ No
Pirate Patty			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

-- Mike 🗩 16:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is Pirate Patty consider "not reliable"? 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the WorldCat cite above to your table. Pomgrom (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Patty is a blog and is thus not acceptable as a reliable source.

WorldCat is a repository of bibliographic data. It is reliable for verifying certain data about a book but does not provide significant coverage about books by itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. WorldCat includes the number of libraries, their names, and locations that hold various editions of a book in their collections. It also includes individual reviews. WorldCat is even listed as an acceptable reliable source by Wikipedia. Pomgrom (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pomgrom, your worldcat source and almost all other sources listed merely confirm the existence of this book or series. You need to show evidence of notability and, unfortunately, there is zero evidence for that. RegentsPark (comment) 16:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Patty is a WP:BLOG. Blogs CAN be reliable, but it's a high standard. Read WP:BLOG, Pirate Patty would not qualify. -- Mike 🗩 13:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the table below. Two sources that meet General Notability Guidelines required. Six that meet GNG listed.Note: Cite #4 WorldCat (https://www.worldcat.org/title/929458752) displays a catalog of the series including the first book in the series "Loss Of Reason" which is available in paper and ebook, held in 39 library collections, and lists 109 reviews. Pomgrom (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Pomgrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Good Reads	interview	WP:GOODREADS	✘ No
Good Reads 2		WP:GOODREADS BUT with 1700 ratings and more than 200 reviews. Counting Amazon and Google Books, nearly 10,000 reviews and ratings worldwide.	✘ No
Google Books 1		Google Link at top of this article is offered by deletion initiating editor as GNG source of Wiki reference cites. With Wiki limitation removed and searching under individual names of books in series many source instances are returned.	✔ Yes
Google Books 2		Google Link at top of this article is offered by deletion initiating editor as GNG source of Wiki reference cites. With Wiki limitation removed and searching under individual names of books in series many source instances are returned.	✔ Yes
Pirate Patty		Highly respected industry site published for many years containing thousands of reviews	✔ Yes
WorldCat			✔ Yes
Jane V Blanchard Reviews			✔ Yes
NetGalley Reviews		Independent Industry Standard Reviews	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Two things that I think is wrong with your table. Firstly, you have two WP:BLOGS listed as reliable (they're not). Second, WorldCat is a database, it isn't significant coverage. Think "paragraphs" when determining WP:SIGCOV. Also, are you the same editor as they IP editor above? -- Mike 🗩 14:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your motivation, "Darth Mike" for attempting to remove this series Wikipedia page. You seem to have a hidden agenda. Denying coverage of WorldCat's many library collections of holding these books as significant coverage. Calling professional reviewers "blogs." Please disclose your personal motivation trying so hard. Don't you work? Pomgrom (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same. Please disclose your motivation, "Pomgrom" for attempting to keep this series Wikipedia page. You seem to have a hidden agenda. Thinking that coverage of WorldCat's many library collections of holding these books as significant coverage. Calling blogs "professional reviewers." Please disclose your personal motivation trying so hard. I won't ask whether or not you work, as it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Also, I have stricken again your duplicate keep !vote. You have already !voted, you can't !vote again. Also, learn what vandalism is before accusing me. If you suspect me of vandalism, feel free to report me to WP:AIV and if you suspect me of having ulterior motives, report me to WP:COIN. -- Mike 🗩 13:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough vote no longer necessary - have combined "vote" and comments with table.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomgrom (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the many libraries that carry books in the series, the large number of reviews, and the NetGalley review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter Snow Energy (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC) — Winter Snow Energy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NetGalley would not make something notable. Per their own about page and how it works, they just give copies of books to member to review. The review you linked to by Kim C., just states that Kim is an educator. For a review to be meaningful, it must come from a reliable source. -- Mike 🗩 14:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Closer: All keep !votes have come from single-purpose accounts who have had very little to no activity outside of this one topic. -- Mike 🗩 14:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK per the sources discussed here. No plausible merge/redirect target. Suriname0 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike . . . Member of the band Loss Of Reason? Pomgrom (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find reliable reviews about the book in my searches for sources. I do not consider Pirate Patty, a blog, to be a reliable source. The book meets neither Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline nor Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember Closer, GNG are just guidelines, the application of which much is based on opinion and preference. Not hard and fast rules, otherwise more than 20% of the text on Wikipedia would not exist.

Flexibility is important too, taking in the scope and feel and trend.

For example, all the books in this series are listed in "GoogleBooks In Author," here: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inauthor:%22Miles+A.+Maxwell%22&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2mO3J5OyBAxWTOTQIHQgVCg8QmxMoAHoECB8QAg , but no one has yet included this web address as a cite. A common type of problem with Wikipedia. Pomgrom (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:Pomgrom, no need to worry about a specific citation being present in the article; the assessment that other discussion participants make (and that the closer should use as well) is based on the sources both cited on the page and raised here in this discussion. Relevant citations can always be added to the article later. Suriname0 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

"'Strong Keep"' I'm just reading through some of these comments and find them to be out of character for individuals who would truly be concerned about an author's work. But I'm just a reader. All I know is that I have found that I can find almost every one of this series of books in my small local library system in Texas, and that says a lot.

LEESE6388 (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC) — LEESE6388 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete . Fairly obvious, fails GNG. I couldn’t find it in the Bodleian, so I kind of doubt above SPA’s claim even if it was at all relevant to notability. Not much else I can say. Has a notice been made on WP:COIN yet? Fermiboson (talk) 11:42, 25 October 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. ✗plicit 00:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpchi E8[edit]

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

In WP:BEFORE I have been unable to find much in the way of WP:RS covering this to confer notability onto the car. There appear to be some youtube videos on it, but almost no articles on it. It's very possible there's a number of them I am missing given Trumpchi is a Chinese company and some of the coverage might not be in English, but from what I could find it was sparse enough for me that I didn't think it passed WP:GNG. TartarTorte 20:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - seems a little premature. - Indefensible (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draftify - once released, I am sure there will be coverage. Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per the above comments. Note that the Chinese Wikipedia does not yet have an article about this car - that's not a requirement for inclusion here, but it is telling.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:46, 19 October 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 delete arguments appear to accurately characterize the sources as not contributing to notability. The responses simply assert otherwise. If the assertions came from editors with reputations for solid source analysis, I might think twice, but that's clearly not the case here. RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nation Chakma[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Press falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and looks like a recent press campaign given that most are dated around the same timeframe. CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a recently created article with linkspam references and no clear claim of notability. Unless the article creator can demonstrate better sourcing (per WP:THREE), this should be deleted. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 117.209.102.31 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Page quality or poor edits are irrelevant in the discussion. The subject is a Indian Actor who had represented his country and state ito the national stage. Keep per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, and 7.Andarredot (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Andarredot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes I agree, I made few or no other edits outside this topic, doesn't mean this page reference is false. it's my opinion only. Andarredot (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability.Ven.kalyandutbhante (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Ven.kalyandutbhante (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The only sources are either WP:UGC or pretty clearly paid promotion (all in very broken English), one of which that even had a date on it was dated after this AFD started; what a coinkydink! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a promotional piece. The nominator hits the nail on the head.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. I found 1 among many many other English and Bengali sources . Clearly significant figure in Indian actor and Enterpreneur with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks.27.56.30.252 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Another reference published since this AfD was started. This fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source was already added to the article three days ago. And it certainly wasn't written by a professional reporter. What professional reporter begins half the paragraphs in an article with the subject's full name? It's a PR piece. Largoplazo (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the seven numbered sources given above by a Keep !voter,
- 1 is clearly advertising.
- 2 is an IMDb page, user-generated, database-driven content.
- 3 reads as a PR piece channeling what Chakma wants it to say, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.
- 4 is database-driven content that says almost nothing.
- 5 reads as a PR piece, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.
- 6 is so badly written, clearly not a third-party reporting piece. "Nation Chakma is an Indian Actor conceived on March 09, 1996"? "He is the primary tyke from his family who acquired Chakma Actor, Entertainer as his profession."? "He is a skilled and influenced person. He fathoms he needs to put in exceptional exhibits multi-day in day out, and that is what he surpasses desires at."? This is all public relations.
- 6 (#2) links to another Wikipedia article.
- 7 is a database-generated listing that gives his name followed by links to some film trailers but no information.

Largoplazo (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources106.221.118.125 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 22:51, 17 October 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 Professional Bull Riders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PBR Top 30[edit]

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

This page was WP:BLARred by VickKiang with the rationale all of the refs are non-independent and are from PBR. Refs I can found mention this in a few sentences while covering other subjects and does not pass SIGCOV IMO. I do largely agree with that rationale; however, I am bringing this here (a) procedurally because I don't think that there is a good target for the redirect and (b) if that is the case and this page has contested notability then the page might be best as deleted. TartarTorte 22:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America. TartarTorte 22:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Internet, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and potentially merge anything worth saving to Professional Bull Riders seems like a good solution to me. Pichpich (talk) 19:55, 20 October 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!} 23:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sapporo Omoide in My Head Jōtai[edit]

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

Ffails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. BEFORE showed nothing, link in article is to database. // Timothy :: talk 20:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This album charted at #20 nationally and was on the charts for 6 weeks, per Oricon, therefore making it likely to meet WP:NALBUM. I have not tried to find separate coverage online (and for this period in Japan most relevant sources are on paper), but at worst this should be redirected to the artist, Number Girl. Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM per evidence provided above by Dekimasu.4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 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!} 23:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With a quick check in ProQuest, I see some coverage of similarly named programs in Ireland[4] and Canada[5][6], Australia[7], Singapore [8], etc.

I wonder if this is a more general concept? If a concept, will surely meet WP:GNG but of course would need to be at Teddy bear hospital or Teddy Bear Hospital —siro χ o 19:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Masood[edit]

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

I came here via a blocked promotional sock account which also edited this one. The article was PRODded before, by User:Onel5969. The BLP is at best a BLP1E, and even that is sketchy because there just is no reliable secondary sourcing to support a claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Individual is quite notable. Keep this page up... Ah507 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source available to claim that the subject is notable, Just a YouTuber. He has some coverage after the tongue-controversy with another YouTuber Muhammad Ali Mirza and about other religion. The subject having no proof of being a lecturer at the seminary. He is just known for having 4 wives, and not notable, thus agrees with the Nominator. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that he is primarily known as a YouTuber, we cannot disregard the impact and influence he has had within the online religious discourse. His notable controversies and debates with figures like Muhammad Ali Mirza have garnered significant attention and discussion within the relevant communities. Ainty Painty (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ainty Painty He has no influence in my view, and if he is an influencer then also, he is not passing the notability criteria. Some websites covered the mouth-fight of Mirza and Masood, this cannot make an individual notable. I really recognize your contributions, but he isn't notable. Thanks Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a shred of notability. Created for promotional purpose. Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agrees with the Nominators view and comment, also at first glance it seems more promotional content. and failed in WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjoegoldberg (talk • contribs)
Comment @Maliner and @Mrjoegoldberg The criticism of being a "promotional" page should be addressed with improvements in the article's neutrality, rather than outright deletion. Mufti Tariq Masood's work has been influential in shaping discussions on religion and theology in the digital era. Ainty Painty (talk) 10:11, 22 October 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 Ex tempore decision. I can't relist this a fourth time, so I am somewhat backed into making a determination on what is closer to consensus here with minimal participation. I find this option as outlined by James500 to be the best way forward. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada[edit]

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

This is essentially just a list of a certain type of case decided by the Canadian SC. There are no WLs (signifying that none of these cases are particularly important or notable). There are only 3 years, signifying that this is a project someone started and never finished. Ultimately, we do not have any sourcing which would indicate why this list is significant or notable. The mere fact that the SC can decided cases in this way does not mean that we need to have a list of all the times they did so. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The editor who started this ages ago has made some edits recently so this is possibly the best option for now for this in-progress list. —siro χ o 02:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with moving to a draft, but the last substantive and productive edit to this page (by anyone) was in 2006. Highly unlikely anyone is going to pick back up where they left off, and even further, I do not see what this list adds to anything. There is no indication that being decided orally is of any significance that would give rise to a standalone list. 16:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ex tempore decision, which appears to be the parent topic, and merge the first paragraph of the lead (but not the list). Oral judgments of the Canadian courts is certainly a notable topic [9], but the article would probably need to be extensively rewritten to cover it. Supreme court cases are likely to satisfy GNG, but there is no explanation why oral decisions of the court should be listed separately from reserved decisions, and I cannot think of one. The page is a plausible redirect, and draftification never results in improvements. James500 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to decide between Draftification or a Redirect/Merge combo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 17 October 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!} 20:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Khel[edit]

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

The article is completely unsourced and was formerly reliant on a single colonial-era source (WP:RAJ)as its primary reference. This article should be considered for deletion due to a lack of credible sources and failure to meet the general notability criteria WP:V. O chawal (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. O chawal (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This source has several pages of information about a military conflict impacting the village where the Umar Khel live (the village is also named Umar Khel). The 2011 source also has brief coverage of a different military conflict involving the Umar Khel. This 2020 source lists them as an existing subdividsion of the Hotak Khel/Hassan Khel tribe and this 1983 source and this 2004 source list them as under the Nano Khel. The United States government geo located the tribe in this 1962 source, this 1922 source includes them, as does this 1914 source. The first source is really the only one with in-depth coverage, but I think that a verifiable people group is encyclopedic. Lastly I am fairly confident that significant coverage exists in J. A. Robinson (1978). Notes on Nomad Tribes of Eastern Afghanistan. Gosha-e-Adab. which is snippet view stated "Umar Khel . - 95 families which are nomadic and have no flocks or land , exist by trade between Kandahar and Dera Ismail Khan . They migrate with the Nasar..." That's all I could see but it appears there was more.4meter4 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bagsar Samachar[edit]

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

Ephemeral publication. The article has three references. The first one (in the Historical Journal) is just an in-passing mention, giving the start and end date of the publication. The other two don't even seem to mention the magazine. Does not meet WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being the first periodical published in the Bhojpuri language is historically significant enough to warrant encyclopedic inclusion. The periodical also appears to have changed names (or rather the script changed), so I am not confident the other sources "don't mention" the periodical. Given the language challenges involved I am uncertain that a proper WP:BEFORE search could be done by someone other than a language specialist in Bhojpuri and Devanagari. For this reason, I'm inclined to lean keep even without SIGCOV proved for certain.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources in article and BEFORE do not show WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 20 October 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!} 20:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hochheim, Thuringia[edit]

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

Article is very little and is not notable on Wikipedia. This article has only 3 sentences as the article has no references. This article should be deleted. Geko72290 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment This article is going to be kept, based upon the content of the German and French WP articles, which are extensive. There is even a claim to notability (which our article on Meister Eckhart says isn't true, but...). It has a population in the hundreds, so it's not just a dot on the map. That said, it's a junk stub that could just as well be recreated from scratch as expanded. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is abundant material at German Wiki, some of which I've just added to get things going.Bermicourt (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the German article, this is a notable village. It could have potentially been merged upwards at nomination time, but thanks to Bermicourt now has enough content to stand on its own. —Kusma (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Markussep ^Talk 10:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go[edit]

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Nothing suitable or reliable enough was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE.

If it helps, here’s what I found in Newspapers.com. The Film Creator (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seeing as Burgess Meredith is a known actor, this is the first and only film he has directed...which I think qualifies the film under WP:NFIC, "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." DonaldD23 talk to me 01:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Donaldd23 If what I’m about to tell you is considered WP:NPA, I truly apologize because that is not my intent (my only intent for sending this article to AfD is out of good faith). I must disagree per WP:NOTINHERITED. Yes, the film was directed by Meredith, and it starred notable actors like James Mason and Jeff Bridges. But like I said, I view that as WP:INHERITED. The Film Creator (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that your statement was NPA, so no offense taken. I understand your position, but I am not saying that the film should be kept because notable actors are in it. I am saying that a notable actor who had an important role in their career (1st and only directorial feature) is the reason for inclusion. Therefore, INHERITED is not applicable. Thanks, and keep up the good work. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other than the above, it was also one of the earliest films for composer Robert O. Ragland and actor Jeff Bridges. I would suggest that makes the film fall in Wikipedia:NFIC#Inclusionary_criteria and "significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." @The Film Creator: Thank you for doing WP:BEFORE. It seems this film may suffer from "significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films." --Bensin (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go". Psychotronic Video. No. 40. 2004. pp. 63–64. EBSCOhost 19292964. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Nero Finnegan (Jeff Bridges), a writer who is AWOL from the Army, lives off cynical bar girl Tah Ling (Irene Tsu) in Hong Kong. To raise some money he goes to work for the Fu Manchu type Mr. Go (James Mason), "the embodiment of evil." Go blackmails bi-sexual American Professor Bannister (Peter Lind Hayes), by secretly filming him having sex with Nero, who complains of "rough trading faggots!" Agent Leo Zimmerman (Jack MacGowran from Fearless Vampire Killers), a James Joyce scholar, is sent to befriend and deceive Nero. They bar hop, get smashed, talk literature, and party with three Chinese hookers. Tah Ling is kidnapped, drugged, and nearly raped by Nazi like dyke Zelda (Clarissa Kaye). The Dolphin (Meredith) is Go's eccentric double dealing acupuncturist. A ray from the third eye of a large Buddah statue changes Go's personality and he fakes his own death. It ends with Go and Tah Ling making out inside the Buddah during his big street funeral while a Star Wars type laser defense system is demonstrated. Did I mention that Buddah narrates!? Tsu, who looks great, has several topless scenes. Also with big brawls, chases, a Chinese giant, a monkey, and a (white) drag singer. The light pop songs are by Robert O. Ragland. This odd comedy was shot on location except for CIA boardroom scenes with Broderick Crawford."
2. "Cameramen walk off film set". South China Morning Post. 1970-01-08. p. 6. ProQuest 1510073522.
  The article notes: "The Director of Photography on Burgess Meredith's picture "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," Mr Bob Wyckoff, leaves Hongkong today after quitting yesterday afternoon. Mr Wyckoff walked off the set in a Hilton Hotel room at lunchtime yesterday, together with his operator, Mr. Grady Martin, after only ten days' shooting of the film, which stars James Mason, Jack MacGowran, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. ... However, filming will continue without the American camera team, as Mr Cranston has engaged a local freelance cameraman, Mr Ray Woodbury, to work on the production until Mr Stephens arrives.
3. Black, Ian (1970-01-27). "Mr Go takes on fresh air of enthusiasm". South China Morning Post. p. 9. ProQuest 1510080766.
  The article notes: "Anyone who saw John Frankenheimer's film Grand Prix in Cinerama ... They were probably the most exciting shots ever set up for a movie anywhere, and the man responsible for them — cameraman John Stephens — is in Hongkong this week. In fact, Stephens will be here for some time, as he is working on Burgess Meredith's new production, The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go, which is currently being made in the Colony. He replaced cameraman Bob Wyckoff, who walked off the set after a series of disputes with director Meredith, and Stephens' arrival has brought a fresh air of enthusiasm to everyone involved in the picture. ... Already, director and cameraman have established the kind of rapport necessary to achieve any kind of success in filming a motion picture. And this obviously has a good effect on the actors — James Mason, Jeff Bridges, Jack MacGowran and Irene. Tsu.""
4. "Actor has a haircut". South China Morning Post. 1969-12-31. p. 8.
  The article notes: "Champagne bottles were popping together with photographers' bulbs when Burgess Meredith had his head shaven at the Hongkong Hilton last night. The occasion was part of the preparations for Meredith's cameo role as The Dolphin in the picture, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," which Meredith is making here with James Mason, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. Meredith and makeup man, Marvin Westmore, spent more than an hour completing the transformation from Meredith's long-haired Hollywood appearance to create that of a short-haired Mandarin-moustached aging Oriental. Meredith plays the role of a Hongkong acpuncturist in the film."
5. Sweeney, Kevin (1999). James Mason: A Bio-Bibliography. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 34. ISBN 0-313-28496-2. ISSN 0892-5550. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Mason then went to Hong Kong for an honest-to-God disaster that couldn't have looked good even on paper. The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go (1969–70) was written and directed by actor Burgess Meredith, going behind the camera for the first time since The Man on the Eiffel Tower (1949). Mason is an Asian arms dealer who gets involved with a young American (Jeff Bridges). This international mishmash ran out of money and was officially never completed, though it may have been later patched together and released in Southeast Asia under the title The Third Eye. It can now be found on video under its original name, with obviously fake new scenes featuring Broderick Crawford."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Jerry Roberts articles:
    1. Roberts, Jerry (1988-08-12). "Oddball movies his bridge to success". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20.
      The article notes: "ven in the cornball and sorely out-dated "In Search of America" (1970), a made-for-television hooter from the hippie era, and in the loony oddity, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), Bridges' talent, which in those days fed on his unveiled enthusiasm, was undeniable. ... If you want to mix in a doozy of a change of pace, rent "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," of which there is no record in almost all of the major film source books. It was directed by Burgess Meredith in Hong Kong, co-stars Meredith, James Mason and Broderick Crawford, and mixes espionage with a travelogue of the city, strange sexual behavior and cracked Eastern mysticism, all adorned with a loopy bubblegum-pop score."
    2. Roberts, Jerry (1991-09-21). "Bridges can't pass up a challenge". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20.
      The article notes: "His least-known film is undoubtedly "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), a Hong Kong travelogue holding up an espionage and acupuncture plot, written and directed by Burgess Meredith, co-starring James Mason and Meredith."
    3. Roberts, Jerry (1989-07-21). "A portrait of the actor as director". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20.
      The article notes: "You may or may not want to recall several jaw-dropping experiences, the foremost of which might be Burgess Meredith's incredibly ridiculous "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), with Jeff Bridges as a hippie in a bubble-gum Hong Kong travelogue about acupuncture, spies and strange sexual proclivities. This one has to be seen to be believed. James Mason and Broderick Crawford are in it, too."
    4. Roberts, Jerry (1993-10-15). "Fearless Jeff Bridges - His bold career eclipses those with more star power". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20.
      The article notes: "In his earliest roles, at age 20, Bridges' talent was undeniable, even in the cornball and sorely out-dated "In Search of America" (1970), a made-for-television hooter from the hippie era, in which he played a Ken Kesey-style social dropout driving a flower-power bus, and in the loony oddity, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), in which he was caught up in Hong Kong intrigue."
  2. "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go". Film Index International. British Film Institute. 1971. ProQuest 1745270154.
    The entry notes: "Alternate title: The Third Eye; Touch and Go. Alternate title: The Third Eye; Touch and Go." The entry notes: "Hong Kong: Concerned with a half-English, half-Malaysian entrepreneur, who suddenly becomes involved in the legend, whereby once every seven years Buddha changes a person and this enables other people to change accordingly."
  3. Sheehan, Ed (1970-05-17). "in Hong Kong the unusual is commonplace". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article said of James Mason, "He is making a film here, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," with Australian actress Clarissa Kay, Jeff Bridges and Irene Tseu. He describes it as "A sort of "Terry and the Pirates' with sociological and religious overtones." One gathers that the picture goes well, though progress and spirits rise and fall with fluctuations of its financing. There is a lavish buffet at noon daily in the Espresso Room of the hotel. It costs less than two U.S. dollars. Barometer of the movie's current condition is the behavior of one of its entrepreneurs. If he eats three heaping plates, making it his single meal of the day, it means things are shaky. Director Burgess Meredith is unperturbed and unquenchable. A highly charged, intense man, he has high hopes for the film. "And give my best regards to Buck Buchwach and Eddie Sherman."
  4. Leach, John (1970-04-17). "Meredith Has No Time for Yesterdays". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "But it's still today and tomorrow that count with Meredith. "I'm in the middle of cutting my latest film. It has been shot and I'm just cutting. I wrote, produced and directed it and I'm also acting in it with James Mason. We rescued a pretty little Chinese girl, Inez Tsu, from Frank Sinatra and she's in it too." The film, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," was shot in Hong Kong and takes its title from a bit of Zen Buddhism. According to Zen, the yin and the yang represent the duality of nature or "the sweet and sour of life," as Meredith puts it. ..."
  5. McHarry, Charles (1970-02-09). "On the Town". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Dong Kingman writes from Hong Kong that Burgess Meredith, directing "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," had his head shaved and his eyes slenderized to play a Chinese acupuncturist in the movie"
  6. Campbell, Mary (1974-01-05). "Jeff Bridges is hopeful despite many setbacks". Berkeley Gazette. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Then there was "The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go," a four-month Hong Kong project Bridges greatly enjoyed and for which he got paid, though it was never released. "Burgess Meredith wrote it and acted in it. The story was beautiful.""
  7. Blowen, Michael (1984-03-01). "Jeff Bridges Chooses Roles With Three Factors in Mind: Director, Story and Money". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "But Bridges can describe how he feels about the second film he made. "This is hard to believe but I played an AWOL Vietnam soldier who was writing a Joycean rock opera in Hong Kong," he said. "The movie was written and directed by Burgess Meredith and it was called 'The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go.' James Mason starred as a Chinese-Mexican guy. That's about all I can remember about it except I think it's better than it sounds." "The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go" was never released."
  8. Schlossheimer, Michael (2002). Gunmen and Gangsters: Profiles of Nine Actors Who Portrayed Memorable Screen Tough Guys. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-1-4766-3546-0. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go. Ross International 1971. Burgess Meredith. James Mason, Jeff Bridges, Irene Tsu, Alec McCowen, Peter Lind Hayes. Confused tale of international arms trading. BC narrates sequences that were added without director Meredith's participation."
  9. Craig, Rob (2019). American International Pictures: A Comprehensive Filmography. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 169. ISBN 978-1-4766-6631-0. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Top-billed Jim Kelly makes only the briefest appearance, but Burgess Meredith—whose own film The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go (1970) shares some similarities with Golden Needles—gives a bravura performance."
  10. "Attacked while shooting film". South China Morning Post. 1970-01-10. p. 5. ProQuest 1510075234.
    The article notes: "A former radio personality was wounded yesterday when three youths attacked him during location shooting of an American film in Wongneichong Road, Happy Valley. Mr Bill Furnival, a 22-year-old former Commercial Road reporter, was assisting in the production of the film, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," when he was assaulted by the youths, one armed with a knife and the others others with broom handles."
  11. "The artist and the professional". South China Morning Post. 1970-01-03. p. 9. ProQuest 1510066621.
    The article notes: "Now Jack MacGowran is hard at work preparing for his role in The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go, with James Mason, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. ..."
  12. "35 years ago this month". Playboy. January 2006. p. 71. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "At the time of her pictorial in January 1971 Liv Lindeland was developing an acting career for both the screen and age. ... Still, she would appear in popcorn fare such as The Yin and Yang of Mr Go, ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 15:37, 20 October 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!} 20:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Chéry[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Haiti women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found a passing mention in ANMWE but nothing more than that Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn and Delete vote struck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sucker Punch (2008 film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a review in PopMatters. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The only piece of significant coverage that I could find is the popmatters review mentioned above. More is needed. -- Mike 🗩 15:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the below sources.-- Mike 🗩 14:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

....Keep. Hardy's presence has received some retrospective coverage (ex: here, here or here). The film is mentioned in The British Boxing Film. If judged insufficient, redirect to Tom Hardy#Filmography or to List of boxing films.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Maine, David (2011-12-08). "'Sucker Punch': A Series of Fights, Confrontations, Fights, Arguments, Fights, and Fights". PopMatters. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
  The review notes: "Hoo boy, this is a bad movie. There’s a fine tradition of powerful boxing movies out there—Raging Bull, Rocky, even Million Dollar Baby come to mind, not to mention documentaries like When We Were Kings. But Sucker Punch is a different critter altogether. It’s a poorly written, poorly executed, cliché-ridden, low-budget snoozer that’s a chore to watch. It’s not even so bad it’s good. It’s just… very tired."
2. Glynn, Stephen (2021). The British Boxing Film. Cham: Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-74209-6. Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Shiner's Stoney-Mahoney fight footage echoes the environment (and, alas, filming technique) of another hardnosed boxing adaptation, 3 Finger Productions' Sucker Punch (Malcolm Martin, April 2008), which eschewed Shakespeare for a micro-budget British remake/update/travesty of Hard Times aka The Streetfighter (Walter Hill, 1975). In the US original, 1930s illegal prizefighter Chaney was played by Charles Bronson-real name Charles Buchinsky: in homage the similarly taciturn fighter here bears the same name. Sucker Punch relates how Buchinsky (Gordon Alexander), newly returned to London's boxing underworld, is taken up by flash, fast-talking but strictly small-time illegal fight promoter Ray ‘Harley' Davidson (Danny John Jules)—the equivalent of James Coburn's garrulous conman Speed from Hard Times. Accompanied by a soundtrack from the Stranglers' Jean-Jacques Burnel and Baz Warne, Buchinsky progresses to a climactic fight-off against rival manager Victor Maitland (UFC veteran and 2004 Cage Rage world heavyweight champion Ian 'The Machine' Freeman) and the chance to avenge a previous heavy beating: after a ten-minute laboured slog with repeated fake blood-spitting, he does so. Comic cameos from Antonio Fargas, Tamer Hassan and (a pre-fame but subsequent release-prompting) Tom Hardy seek to leaven the fight scenes' dubious brutality, but only accentuate the tonal uncertainty—a match for the film's alarmingly erratic camera focus and lighting. ..."
3. Jenkins, Dan (2005-01-03). "Hardman sets sights on a Hollywood career". Durham County Publications. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
  The article notes: "North-East hardman Ian "The Machine" Freeman is taking a principal role in an independent film about the murky world of bare-knuckle fighting. ... Entitled Sucker Punch, it also stars martial arts expert Gordon Alexander, ... He was offered the role after the producers saw him in Sky One show Britain's Hardest, which he co-presented with actor Steve McFadden, former on-screen hardman Phil Mitchell in EastEnders."
4. "Champ lines up fighting film role". Evening Chronicle. 2005-01-08. ProQuest 349781753. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
  The article notes: "The hard-hitting film is set in London and centres around the world of bare-knuckle fighting. ... Sucker Punch tells the story of a wronged man, Bushinski, who, 10 years after being viscously attacked by Maitland, is seeking revenge. The British, Intercontinental and World Champion ultimate fighter and dad-of-three has taken time away from the world's most violent sport to begin filming, which will end this summer. Writer and director Malcolm Martin, who worked with Brad Pitt on Fight Club, hopes the film will be shown in cinemas in 2006."
5. Sabbaga, Julia (2020-04-24). "Além de Capone: 6 papéis em que Tom Hardy está irreconhecível" [In addition to Capone: 6 roles in which Tom Hardy is unrecognizable]. Omelete. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
  The article notes: "Lá por 2008, Tom Hardy já tinha feito alguns papeis em filmes maiores como Maria Antonieta e Nem Tudo é o Que Parece, mas seu personagem em Sucker Punch (não o do Zack Snyder, outro filme com o mesmo nome) trouxe de volta seu hábito de metamorfose. No longa, Hardy aparece em menos de 2 minutos como um mecânico, mas mesmo com pouco tempo de tela ele não economizou na transformação."
  From Google Translate: "By 2008, Tom Hardy had already made some roles in bigger movies like Maria Antonieta and not everything is what it seems, but his character in Sucker Punch (not Zack Snyder, another movie with the same name) brought back his habit of metamorphosis. In the feature, Hardy appears in less than 2 minutes as a mechanic, but even with a short screen time he did not save on the transformation."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. "A magazine editor with a lot of clout". Durham County Publications. 2005-03-01. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
    The article notes: "The 37-year-old, from Leadgate, near Consett, County Durham, recently landed a role in the independent film Sucker Punch, directed by Malcolm Martin"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sucker Punch to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 18:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once Fallen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found these from Looper.com and Newspapers.com respectively, and neither of them are suitable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also found this link from MovieWeb, which is not enough. The Film Creator (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found this Dutch movie magazine review here, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding that. According to User:Donaldd23, Cinemagazine is considered reliable. However, I will not withdraw unless: A.) there’s one other reliable or suitable review; or B.) more “keep” votes per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Review in Italian at MyMovies.it, which makes 2 at least. Internationally distributed.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw nomination per reviews by Cinemagazine and Mymovies.it. Passes NFO, NFSOURCES and NEXIST. Excellent work, everybody. The Film Creator (talk) 18:30, 23 October 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!} 20:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Fox (badminton)[edit]

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

Made when the guideline WP:NBAD was more inclusive, however now that the guideline has been revised to just include Grand Prix/Super Series/World Tour, this article no more passes the notability parameter. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. zoglophie^•talk• 19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and England. zoglophie^•talk• 19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG along with WP:NSPORT. User:Let'srun 02:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify.‎. I have also lowered protection on the correct main space page title to Extended Confirmed after it was fully protected for 12 years now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doron braunshtein[edit]

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

The article Doron Braunshtein is salted against recreation after being repeatedly speedy deleted. This doesn't quite qualify as a speedy deletion candidate but there's still an absence of in-depth coverage in reliable sources so I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and improve, ru: Аполло Брон appears to pass WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify, Article is in generally poor condition and translation is needed. Seawolf35 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 01:50, 23 October 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 01:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vasudevaperumal Temple (Kolathanvalsu)[edit]

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

I could literally find no sources for this temple. Sohom (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Maps link provided shows a rather modest temple in the middle of the field, while I'm not doubting the temple's existence, I don't see it being notable :( Sohom (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, India, and Tamil Nadu. Sohom (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 17 October 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 Acid Mothers Temple discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Gals A Go-Go[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album-specific notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Acid Mothers Temple discography. I could not find enough sources to support a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Acid Mothers Temple discography per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 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!} 17:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Bae[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The person does not meet our guideline for WP:ENT. Previously, WP:PORNBIO was the guide but it was depreciated in March 2019. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No change in notability since the article was deleted at AfD two years ago. Same junk sources and still fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Independent search finds nothing substantial or reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be significantly different from the previous version, which would make this eligible for speedy deletion. Same garbage sources. Note, please do not honor any requests to draftify this article. It appears this was done before, and the person just shoved it back into mainspace with no effort to improve. Zaathras (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and move to Urban flight.‎. No point in a Merge as Urban flight is a Redirect page with no content but a link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban colonization[edit]

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

Hard to tell if this is correct as it has been uncited for over a decade Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Behavioural science and Geography. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. The article has no proper citations, true, but discusses two analyses in named published works and has two "Further reading" sources, so it's clearly notable and probably secretly sourced, just not how we like it.
Urban flight redirects to this article, which is backwards. Keep and move to Urban flight over redirect. Folly Mox (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes you are right I had not noticed the urban flight redirect. This seems a good solution as even I have heard of urban flight so that must be a more common name Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way White flight has over 100 cites but not sure how that fits in Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Urban flight per above. Clearly a notable and much-discussed topic in the news and scholarly sources. The article is quite bad, but AfD is not cleanup, and this does not raise to the level of WP:TNT imo. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Urban flight: No reason for WP:TNT. Nagol0929 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Software[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Arizona, and Wisconsin. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guideline states that in order for a company to be notable, the sources have to be secondary, independent, and reliable. There are three references that cite the "About" pages of companies, one reference citing a Google+ forum, two of them cite the subject's website, and the remaining one doesn't give significant coverage. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 05:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 16:42, 20 October 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!} 23:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk bins[edit]

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

don't seem to be a notable type of container Chidgk1 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Scattered mentions of the term in Gnewspapers for example, but simple mentions don't describe what this is, beyond an expanded DICDEF I can't find any sources for this item. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 17 October 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 Ubiedrze. and Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milczany, West Pomeranian Voivodeship[edit]

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

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

As it says on the PL Wiki article, this is an "unofficial settlement" (nieoficjalna osada). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...) nor is a Milczany in Bobolice listed on the Polish regulation of place-names.

From the over-head satellite pictures you can see that this is just an empty field in the village of Ubiedrze.

Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition, nor evidence of an actual population. FOARP (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pl wiki article says it is in old TERYT database, but not new. Franly, I would see this as an error corrected. Also, pl wiki lists this as "unofficial village extension" for Ubiedrze. I say redirect and merge there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Ubiedrze per Piotrus. Another bogus bot creation.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:40, 23 October 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!} 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Deterville[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least six caps for the Antigua and Barbuda national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. A few examples of what I did find were 1, 2 and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Antigua and Barbuda. JTtheOG (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find anything better than what JT already found Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 24 October 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!} 17:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hutniki[edit]

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

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

As it says on the PL Wiki article, this is an "unofficial settlement" of the village of Przeborowo (nieoficjalna osady wsi Przeborowo). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...) nor is it listed on the Polish regulation of place-names.

From the over-head satellite pictures you can see that this is just a couple of random buildings in the middle of nowhere.

Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition, nor evidence of an actual population. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in TERYT. Article claims it is a "woodland area", so was this even a populated place, or just a name for some nearby forest (unofficial at that?). I nominated it for deletion on pl wiki (article there has different sources, but first one does not mention this entity, and I can't access the second one). Just in case, it may be good to wait till pl wiki discussion is closed and monitor it for arguments: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:19:Hutniki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus. Another bogus bot creation.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:41, 23 October 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. ✗plicit 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lola James[edit]

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

The film was only covered by reliable sources when it was first announced and has received virtually no mentions since. I could only find three pages that have referenced Lola James since 2022:

Sunday Times interview - Peltz says that she cut her husband's speaking role from the film and that she was making the movie when trying to coordinate her wedding dress. (October 2022)
Daily Mail article - Briefly mentions that Peltz posted "raunchy" set photos and mentions that the film is in post-production, but Daily Mail is deprecated and was the only publication I could find saying that. (February 2023)
Yahoo News article - Peltz posts a photo wearing a fake baby bump and her fans think she's actually pregnant. (February 2023)

This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of ~~WP:CRYSTAL~~ WP:TOOSOON given that all the info available about the movie is its cast and crew, the fact that it's been filmed, and that Peltz cut her husand out of it. Even the "crew" part is fuzzy, as I couldn't find sources for the cinematographer, editor, or composers. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 14:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 14:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like there are a few more sources but these just repeat stuff from each other, which suggests there isn't much to say. It's WP:TOOSOON to say anything about the project. JMWt (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source assessment and the ones I found online, which repeat the same stuff. However, not particularly opposed to draftifying and publishing if the film does eventually receive more coverage. NotAGenious (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment: I'd also support draftifying the article if that's preferable to deletion. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree it seems WP:TOOSOON, though draftify would be ok in case things change. Flurrious (talk) 01:29, 23 October 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 15:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Pointe at North Fayette[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and, as noted in 2018, also fails WP:NGEO. Only one source from a newspaper story from 1960, which briefly mentions the mall by a former name in passing within a story about another entity. The balance of the article is nothing more than a collection of links to commercial websites for the what purports to be the mall occupant stores. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPRICE This "retail development " is in reality a shopping complex, and lists every retailer and service therein, with individual article links to each. And those individual articles have a link to their own websites. The few that do not have a Wikipedia article, have direct links to their own web sites. — Maile (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, after removing the WP:ELNO, WP:CRYSTAL, redlinks, and WP:TENANTS dreck, there is the bones of a salvageable stub here. Cabayi (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable retail development. Dough4872 17:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly generic edge city power center with the expected stores you'd expect to find at one named Mad Libs-style. Nate • (chatter) 21:13, 17 October 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!} 17:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Tanguy[edit]

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

Routine media coverage, not notable businessperson. Reads like COI Assirian cat (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Arts, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rather easy to find RS, these are the first two from Gnews [10], [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Oaktree b says above there are long profile pieces which seem to suggest notability. They seem to me to be largely interviews but with sufficient critical editorial to be useable as a RS. JMWt (talk) 15:10, 17 October 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!} 17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samsun Atatürk Anatolian High School[edit]

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

Barebones article merely citing a just as barebones web page, with no indication of notability. – anlztrk (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. – anlztrk (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably the most well known school in the city. I have added an academic reference. Pretty sure native Turkish speakers can find more by searching for the previous name - including "Maarif" as you can see at Anatolian High School. It is a bit irritating that the Turkish article has no cites - if you are Turkish it would be handy if you could add cites for us to copy here, at least for İsmet İnönü visit. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 17 October 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 15:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant Arroyo[edit]

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

In as much as Arroyo is known at all, it is for the fraudulent claims of antivaxers that the baby he killed, actually died due to a vaccine. And therein lies the problem. The primary sources for the article were "Medical Veritas: The Journal of Medical Truth" (see also: Badger's Law), and a rebuttal in Quackwatch, which I regard as reliable but others don't.

This was a minor cause célèbre among ANTIVA, but I don't see any evidence of lasting coverage in reality-based media.

His campaign activities as an inmate activist might pass WP:1E but here, again, the level of coverage is minimal and fundamentally about the campaign, not the man. I don't think we have enough here for a WP:BLP: a routine crime, a bit of woo-monger conspiracist BS, and some reporting of involvement in a prisoners' campaign. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Environment, and Puerto Rico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to pass crime notability, coverage I find is all from a site called "Workers World" in Gnews. Kudos for the coal plant thing, but I don't think that gets you an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Workers World is the Communist Party newspaper for the USA, which implies bias. I can't find coverage in any RS otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls short of WP:GNG by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 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 13:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowe Ostrowy PKP[edit]

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

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

"PKP" stands for Polskie Koleje Państwowe and is the initials of Polish State Railways. As can be confirmed from the satellite view, this is a railway spur/siding where it looks like coal is or was handled (note that Google Maps includes this as a place name, but they likely got that from scraping data from Wikipedia). This is therefore just a railway facility.

This article was created automatically on the basis of a Polish Wikipedia article that was deleted some years ago. The location of the article is within Nowe Ostrowy, a village for which we already have an article. A reference is given to the TERYT database, but with out the SIMC ID it is not possible to search the database for it - however there is no listing for Nowe Ostrowy PKP in the Polish regulation of place-names. A population of 40 people is given in the article, but no source is provided for it, and I cannot find any listing for Nowe Ostrowy PKP in the Polish GUS database where census data should be available for locations where it is counted.

TL;DR - fails WP:NTRAINSTATION, WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pl interwiki, no evidence this PKP-related something has stand-alone notability. TERYT only lists the main village for that county, no related hamlet or anything else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FOARP. Another bogus bot creation.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:44, 23 October 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 13:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bzówki PGR[edit]

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

Yet another (another) mass-created article about a non-notable communist-era state farm in Poland by Kotbot, a bot operated by Kotniski. Kotbot generated these articles based on articles in PL Wiki, but this one has already been deleted. The location is near Bzówki which we already have an article about - but you can see that Google Maps, which scrapes Wikipedia data, includes it as a location despite it not existing. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pl interwiki, no evidence this State Farm (PGR) has stand-alone notability. TERYT only lists the main village for that county, no related hamlet or anything else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per Piotrus

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:32, 23 October 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 13:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suchodębie PGR[edit]

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

Yet another mass-created article about a non-notable communist-era state farm in Poland by Kotbot, a bot operated by Kotniski. Kotbo generated these articles based on articles in PL Wiki, but this one has already been deleted. The location is in Suchodębie which we already have an article about. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pl interwiki, no evidence this State Farm (PGR) has stand-alone notability. TERYT only lists the main village for that county, no related hamlet or anything else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:24, 23 October 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. There have been two relistings without any additional comments so I'll just close this now as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadrakali High School[edit]

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

Since the last AfD, there is now no inherent notability of high schools. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The old AfD doesn't seem to have been linked, so for ease of reference it is here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhadrakali High School, Gokarna. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am no fan of pages that are stubs after many years, and neither am I fan of ideas of automatic notability, but I think this is the wrong school to test that on. It is mentioned in one scientific paper and a lot of books. Some of these, such as [12] confirm the detail that it is one of the oldest (the book says the oldest) in the region. There are apparently notable ex pupils etc. This looks like it passes WP:GNG to me. It definitely needs attention, and a lot of it, but I can't, hand on heart, say I think this is not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add to this that I would like to put it beyond doubt by finding several sources that are clearly reliable independent secondary sources with significant mentions, but many of the mentions in books are passing mentions. There is this one, though, Survey Report, Part X-B, Series-23, West Bengal - Census 1981 which, despite its name, is a fuller report than just a census and tells us the school dates from the 19th century. For instance, it tells us:
"Again. Bhadrakali High School is the oldest institution in the entire municipal town, having been established in BhadrakaJi in 1824 as a Middle English school by the Christian Missionaries of Serampore. The present schoof was establishment in 1945 and got merged with the former Middle school. The school got affiliated as Higher Secondary institution in 1976. Shri Binod Behari Bhattacharya, an ex-Headmaster of this school, was honoured as a National Teacher. Shri Ajit Bugh. a teacher of this school, was elected as a Member 9f the Lok Sabha in 1982-87. Among other institutions in the town. Kotrung Bhupendra Smriti Vidyalaya has, in recent years. turned out to be one of the best schools in the region, so far as results of the Madhyamick Examination are concerned. A number of students of this school secured top places for a number of years."

This is clearly one source. For GNG we need multiple, but given the information there, I suspect more exist - except maybe not all of them in English. It looks notable to me, even though I haven't (yet) found additional sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 17 October 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 13:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Łęki Kościelne SK[edit]

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

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

There is no sign that this place actually exists. It was created automatically on the basis of a Polish Wikipedia article that was deleted some years ago. The location in the article is simply a street in the village of Łęki Kościelne. There is no indication what SK stands for. A reference is given to the TERYT database, but with out the SIMC ID it is not possible to search the database for it - however there is no listing for Łęki Kościelne SK in the Polish regulation of place-names. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Identical situation and hence, my rationale, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ktery SK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable/non-existent per FOARP

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:34, 23 October 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 13:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ktery SK[edit]

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

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

There is no sign that this place actually exists. It was created automatically on the basis of a Polish Wikipedia article that was deleted some years ago. No location is given in the article, though probably it is some former part or company of the village of Ktery. There is no indication what SK stands for though. A reference is given to the TERYT database, but withinout the SIMC ID it is not possible to search the database for it - however there is no listing for Ktery SK in the Polish regulation of place-names. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A possiblity, based on https://www.szukajwarchiwach.gov.pl/en/zespol/-/zespol/72822 and https://zamkilodzkie.pl/leki_koscielne/, is that the "SK" in this and Łęki Kościelne SK is pl:Stadnina koni and that these were stud farms, or parts of the villages where a stud farm was located. The SIMC IDs were probably 0568060 and 0568150. Peter James (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pl interwiki, no evidence of notability. We don't even know what SK stands for. Peter makes one suggestion above, my first guess would be "stacja kolejowa" (train station), but who knows? TERYT has no entry for anything on Krety that is not a village proper (Ktery; TERYT search).

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FOARP. Another bogus bot creation.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:48, 23 October 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 23:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government High School, Honagera[edit]

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

No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any sources. Sources from Google search gave me their facebook page, a primary source. The only source is a list that doesn’t even have significant coverage. Just because it has amenities doesn’t mean it is notable. Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most sources found via Google search are wiki-like websites, which fail WP:UGC. Only non-user generated source is this: [13]. However, a single website probably isn't enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Liu1126 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 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 13:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indu Shahani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Article reads like a resume, only has one source etc. A search for sources turned up primary and unreliable sources. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to RS Worldiswide (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. are Sheriff of Mumbai generally notable? It seems like a prominent position in one of the largest cities of the world, representing the city itself. Or did I misunderstand the position? --hroest 20:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hannes Röst, it seems like an honourary position given for one year (typically) per the article. I guess if someone gets the position it may imply local notability but it seems purely perfunctory. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above comment about reliable sources. When I did a Google search, I found numerous promotional type-profiles (like one would write on a website/to introduce a person) but nothing substantial. Maybe there are some in a language other than English. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 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 Art Blakey discography. If this is not the correct Redirect target article, feel free to discuss a change on the Redirect's talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Night (Wayne Shorter song)[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years, notability tag since 2018. Nothing to suggest this meets notability standards for music JMWt (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the musician... There is some limited coverage of the song [14] is an NPR-interview/review long talk thing like they do... Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Art Blakey discography. Actually the title of this article is wrong because the disambiguation for a song title should be to the performer, not the songwriter. See Children of the Night (Richard Marx song), which has the same title. (For kicks, see also the ridiculous list of songs at Hold On). In any case, the recording was by Art Blakey, and if someone searches for the song title with the reference to Shorter, they can be redirected there. Another possibility is to redirect to the disambig page at Children of the Night, and then remove the resultant internal link. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the following statement counts as sigcov, so the GNG is halfway meet (I see opportunity in other sources) The first song on the album is “Children of the Night,” a song that Shorter had initially written for Art Blakey and the Jazz Messenger’s album Mosiac in 1961. Revisiting and reinvisioning music is not something new to Shorter, as already discussed with the rapid transformation of “Sanctuary” within two years of its composition. Shorter’s original rendition of “Children of the Night” was obviously written for a much smaller ensemble and without the technological advances from the following three decades. The original abounds with stereotypical Shorter compositional elements: a wealth of chromatic movements, several of which lead into ii-V-I progressions, and sequential melodic motives that seemingly transition without predetermined direction. The asymmetrical form uses a twenty measure opening section with two separate ideas and interrupts it with a bridge that is only eight measures and has many similar elements to the second theme of the larger division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect exhaustive search has pulled up little. Mach61 (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thesis for a Masters degree. We do not usually consider those Reliable Sources for the purposes of notability (I guess because there are large numbers of students who write things on a wide number of topics that would otherwise not be notable). JMWt (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC) to add: the relevant section in the RS guideline is WP:SCHOLARSHIP which says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." JMWt (talk) 08:00, 18 October 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 13:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Huppe[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Coverage is X of Y articles, interviews and PR. scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No independent, secondary coverage. The awards and recognitions (Washington Post Leadership Award, Billboard Power List) do not really contribute to notability. Mooonswimmer 14:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer If these are all about sourcing issues (even though CEO of large company) how is this one, [15]https://www.billboard.com/pro/soundexchange-royalty-payment-milestone/ Stravensky (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its an interview. scope_creep^Talk 06:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to satisfy a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:56, 23 October 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 13:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Lipski[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Looked at the first blocks of references. Mix of PR, technical papers. Mostly passing mentions, company info or WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS sources scope_creep^Talk 09:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Israel, England, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company he was CEO of, Velocys, Inc, might be notable, but there is no in-depth coverage of Lipski in independent, secondary sources. Mostly passing mentions and PR, as per nom. Mooonswimmer 15:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enough notable references are weak 111.119.189.160 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does being "the first to develop sentiment analysis AI software" not count as notable? Stravensky (talk) 22:51, 20 October 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.

Frederic Chapple[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

After examining the references, in my view they (perhaps narrowly) don’t meet the "significant" part of WP:SIGCOV. While he did get an entry in a biographical dictionary, the newspaper articles seem to be local briefs about how the subject left on a voyage, returned from another, retired, died, etc. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography should be sufficient for WP:ANYBIO#3. Curbon7 (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs in the article clearly demonstrate that the subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3 —siro χ o 00:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Pretty clear that the existing references cover it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:08, 18 October 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!} 23:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darfur campaign[edit]

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

No updates or evidence of a campaign Jebiguess (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Is there any evidence of a true "campaign" in Darfur? This page has been up since the beginning of the war in Sudan, and seldom edited since. There are only two battles mentioned, the battle of Geneina and the battle of Nyala, capitals of West and South Darfur respectively. The other city mentioned is Kabkabiya, which hasn't been edited to even mention a link for it's page, and the only incident in Kabkabiya was the killing of three WFP staff early in the war.[reply]

Other Darfuri cities and capitals, such as Zalingei, Ed Daein, and El Fasher are not mentioned in the article, with the latter mentioned in the infobox. Cities like Kutum, Sirba, Misterei, Kubum, and others are also not mentioned at all, likely due to the lack of editing on this page.

While all of these issues can be solved with a ton of editing, what is the big picture here? There is no evidence showing that there is a connected military campaign by the Rapid Support Forces or Sudanese army in Darfur, with goals of capturing one town to move to the next. In state capitals, with the exception of Ed Daein, the pattern has been a siege or attempted siege by RSF/Janjaweed against a garrison of Sudanese forces, with varying degrees of success. This is no different than El Obeid or parts of Omdurman for that matter, so why is Darfur singled out? For non-capital cities like Kutum and Misterei, it's primarily been local militias against the Janjaweed, which are moreso Arab tribal fighters than coordinated RSF.^[1]

Essentially, I'm proposing this page be deleted because it was WP:CRYSTALBALLing the War in Sudan, and that there's little evidence of a coordinated campaign by any side, nor is the military tactics used any different than other regions of Sudan (with the exception of Khartoum due to urban warfare).

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Sudan. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Missing updates and not being complete is not a cause for deletion + not sure about if WP:CRYSTALBALL fits/applies here as the article is not what nom propose. In essence, the page refer to the fight in the Darfur region during the War in Sudan (2023). Many sources use similar wording to describe warring in the region, see UN Dispatch, AP, The New Humanitarian and Progressive. We might need to start discussing moving the page to War in Darfur (2023) FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It just needs updating, thats alll Lukt64 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 17 October 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. We do not have anywhere near sufficient sourcing to maintain this article in mainspace. I am not draftifying because it appears the author cannot even verify the sourcing, about which there is FRINGE concerns, which means TNT is more appropriate Star Mississippi 00:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia Angkor Revolution [edit]

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

The article as written is an undecipherable mess, but from what I gather from the creator's comments, it's supposed to be about a claimed revolution in the late Angkor period of Cambodian history, albeit one that's only deduced from tangential mentions in historical sources. There are several problems here: (1) The article is very poorly and confusingly written, and doesn't identify the topic it's supposedly covering at all. (2) I can't identify any reliable sources that attest to this claimed "revolution". Those cited in the article seem to only be for specific tangential facts. As far as I can tell, this appears to be WP:original research. The first issue could maybe be fixed (though I think it's bad enough here to fall into WP:TNT territory), but the OR issue is the more serious problem that would call for deletion, unless I'm proven wrong. Paul_012 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Asia, Cambodia, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it mentioned clearly about the revolution of the Cambodian people against the rulers in that time. From the reference source of the Chronicle of Ayutthaya and the record of Zhou Daguan is definitely clear on this point and clear evidence to support it. Especially, the Chronicle of Cambodia itself state about this event too. All of the evidence supports the fact that there is the Revolution in Angkor in this period Platinumshadow153 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide WP:secondary sources that attest to this revolution? Primary historical sources from centuries ago are subject to interpretation, so we need to go by what historians have written. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the one you mentioned is Coedès, George (1996). The Indianized states of Southeast Asia on ISBN 978-0-8248-0368-1. Which is interpretation that not even included the Trasak Paem

However, the one I mentioned is the Chronicle of Ayutthaya that is real historic evidence from Siamese side is one of the primary source. Unfortunately, it is written in Thai mostly. Also even the Chronicle of Cambodia mentioned this revolution too. I understand that many historian who read this Cambodian historic book tell that many events in this Chronicle is more like myth and legend that is the reason I didn't put details on Holy spear or White elephant selection, but only put on only the name of Cambodian King which is most relatable to both Siamese and Cambodian side. This is the secondary source.

,but the global accepted source is Zhou, Daguan (2007). A Record of Cambodia there is a version of English Translated by Peter Harris In University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-9749511244 that said about the revolution clearly which is the main primary source here since it is not interpretion, but the record of real event.

How about you any evidence against the event? Platinumshadow153 (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give specific references, please? Which volume of the Ayutthaya Chronicle? Has it been digitised on vajirayana.org, and if so, can you provide a link? Can you give page numbers for the book sources? --Paul_012 (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could search in British Museum database for the information for the real document. Unfortunately, the picture could not search by words well. The links of other authors may not be redirect to the real evidence

Digitised Manuscripts (bl.uk) Platinumshadow153 (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many people also read the conclusion from Thai author in this book there are some article on this book related to the topic."ภักดีคำ, ศานติ (2011). "เขมรรบไทย". มติชน. p. 37, 272" Platinumshadow153 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Santi Pakdekham book might be pointing in the right direction, but I'll have to make note to check it next time I visit the library. Meanwhile, even if the topic is verified the article will still need to be entirely rewritten, so draftifying might be an option to consider. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would support draftifying per the above. Might have encyclopedic value, but cannot be confirmed for the moment and in any case is somewhat unintelligible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like original content retconned as sourced content with the name dropping of Zhou Daguan and the Siamese and Cambodian Chronicles without providing any actual sourced evidence. Zhou Daguan's accounts of Cambodia did not even take place during the time period of Trasak Paem's so called 'revolution' as Zhou returned to China in 1297, so I am not sure why he is mentioned. Claims that Trasak Paem is the progenitor of the Norodom dynasty is false, as that was King Norodom (Ang Voddey). As far as I'm concerned, Trasak Paem is a king from legend more than one of history. MosheeYoshee (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion. MosheeYoshee (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why I support deletion - the Burmese Chronicles detail a very similar story of a Burmese cucumber king usurping the throne and predates Trosak Paem. It has been theorized that this Burmese story made its way into the Cambodian Chronicles and that is how the legend of Trosak Paem came to be. Cambodian consensus is that Trosak Paem is a figure of legend. The content on 'Cambodia Angkor Revolution Empire' is not historically accurate and is original research. MosheeYoshee (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be very helpful to have additional analysis on whether there is enough material available to make this a viable subject, and indeed if it there is a substantial consensus among sources that it even happened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trosak Paem is often used in Thai nationalist discourse to incorrectly identify the descendants of the Angkorian empire as not being Khmer, but instead as 'Khom'. They do not believe that the Khmer people are the people of Angkor, and instead see current Khmer people as being descendants of Trosak Paem, a mythical figure who is not from the historical Varman Dynasty. This effort to establish Trosak Paem as a real person who had a 'revolution' is nothing more than an attempt to invalidate Khmer people as not being the descendants of Angkor. See also Anti-Khmer sentiment. MosheeYoshee (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As mentioned above, the author has provided no evidence of reliable sourcing, only a vague allusion to mostly historical primary sources that would seem to fall under WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. The only book source put forward has not been verified to contain coverage of the supposed topic at all. If potential closers are reluctant to choose between deletion and draftifying per my above comments, let me clarify that I would prefer deletion. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
โกหก 2001:44C8:4222:4141:3DCB:8A66:36AB:E8F (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If references haven't shown up during a month on AFD, my inference is they aren't going to. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 25 October 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!} 23:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Johnson-Cochran[edit]

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

Sources on the page and those I find online are simply mentions. There is one in-depth source in the Chicago Tribune I found but on closer examination it is a press release. There is also content on the page (some of which I removed) which is not supported by the references provided. Lots of bold claims as well which I cannot verify from a reliable secondary source. CNMall41 (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No significant coverage, couldn't verify a few claims in the article His film Love and Action in Chicago has received some critical attention and is borderline notable, but I'm not sure it's enough for him to fulfill WP:CREATIVE. Mooonswimmer 15:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Beniwal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. The references on the page and what I find online all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with bylines indicating they are press pieces or have no editorial oversight. CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everyone I would like to participate in this discussion on wether to keep this article or not, Firstly I have created this article Harsh Beniwal because he is a popular youtuber in India, and his YouTube channel have more than 16 Million subscribers (including his second channel) and also his views are more than 1.8 Billion, which is a huge number I think and he also worked in a Superhit Indian film Student of the Year 2. I also believe that he has not proper coverage in Indian News Media, but I think that he may be notable for wikipedia. Thank you WikiAnchor10 (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no have any reliable source, some source are gossip material Worldiswide (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deleted in previous AFDs so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much coverage in reliable sources and views/subscribers don't really contribute to notability. His award and his film roles are minor. Mooonswimmer 14:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt). Still fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG acting roles were minor fails WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 20 October 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!} 05:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of browser synchronizers[edit]

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

Massively-outdated comparison of a tiny number of entries on a non-notable subject, compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of DNA melting prediction software (Browser synchronization is not a notable subject) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browser synchronization. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If "browser synchronization" is not a notable subject then there's no need for this list, and as nom pointed out, it's likely outdated and obsolete anyway. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mooonswimmer 15:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The technology is effectively a checkmark for most browsers now with few requiring third-party tools to sync settings any longer, and these are for the most part depreciated tools. Nate • (chatter) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I take issue with the claim that Browser synchronization is not a notable subject. The cited discussion had input from one other editor and they advocated a merge, not the redirect that happened. Here are a few recent sources establishing notability of the topic: [16]], [17], [18]. The fact that the article is out of date is not a reason to delete it. If a list article is not desireable here, the good content in the list could be merged into a restored Browser synchronization article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the article was actually created to compare standalone software in 2006 when there was no sync feature in browsers but it's evolved into comparing browser features now. The thing is, it's a standard feature now and pretty much same in all browsers and there is not much to compare anymore anyway, it looks useless now. Tehonk (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep — withdrawn‎. Nominating rationale and other concerns no longer apply after recent changes. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective (Rick Nelson album)[edit]

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

This is a contested draftification. No claim to notability per WP:NALBUM. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as nominator. Searches of all the usual databases turned up nothing that would merit keeping. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)(striking duplicate vote, your deletion nomination is your Delete vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Draftify - Does not satisfy musical notability. The only reference is Allmusic, which is not a secondary source. Draftification will give the originator six months to find real sources if they exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was previously draftified. The creator moved it back to the main space within two hours without making changes to improve the article's quality. Significa liberdade (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC Not all albums are notable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NALBUM#C1.
1. AllMusic staff review [19] (Published reviews of creative works are considered secondary sources)
2. SIGCOV of the album in Randy Newman's American Dreams published by ECW Press [20].

—siro χ o 08:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw this source when I was searching as well, and would not call this significant coverage. Reading into it in more detail now, there's only one paragraph about the album, and it's used more as a comparison against the work of Harry Nilsson, who's the main focus of the chapter. I don't think this is enough to meet NALBUM. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with the following significant coverage:

Courrier, Kevin (2005). Randy Newman's American Dreams. Nilsson Sings Newman may have been partly inspired by Rick Nelson's concept approach to Randy Newman on his Perspective album in 1968 (where he also covered songs by Nilsson). In the age of psychedelic rock, Nelson was perceived as an anachronism. A superior rockabilly performer, Nelson nevertheless didn't see himself merely as a washed-up oldies act, so with Perspective, he consciously began deconstructing his rockabilly image. Produced by John Boylen and featuring arrangements by Jimmy Haskell, the record contains a wide breadth of what were then contemporary songs. Besides Newman and Nilsson, Nelson covered tunes by Paul Simon ("For Emily, Wherever I May Find Her") and Richie Havens ("Three Day Eternity"). He also does a lovely rendition of "I Think It's Going to Rain Today" and creates an ambitious medley out of Newman's previously unreleased "Wait Till Next Year," "Love Story" and "So Long Dad/ Love Story (reprise)." Nelson's idea for Perspective was to tell a story about a famous family by connecting a series of songs. In many ways, the record was shaped by Nelson's own memories of his show-biz clan, depicted on TV's The Ozzie and Harriet Show, which painted a serene picture of old-fashioned fifties suburban life. As if emulating Brian Wilson, Nelson incorporated a playful mix of sound effects, which included splashing in the bathtub, cars driving and phones ringing, giving the record the flavor of a radio drama.
Selvin, Joel (1990). Ricky Nelson : idol for a generation. She not only supplied one of her childlike paintings of a recording studio scene for the back cover of his next album, Perspective, but added a breathy French recitation to a song Rick and Boylan wrote called "Hello to the Wind (Bonjour le Vent)." Boylan returned to California, where he was producing folk-rockers the Dillards and the sleek pop group the Association, who was doing the soundtrack to the movie Goodbye, Columbus. Boylan hunted up a bunch of songs by a relatively unknown songwriter named Randy Newman, along with numbers by the likes of Paul Simon, Harry Nilsson, Richie Havens, and a couple of his own, went into the studio with a typical cast of Hollywood sidemen and arrangers, and recorded Perspective, Rick's only 1968 recording, not released until almost a year later. Rick knew what the album sounded like. "I was lost," he said. "For a while I said 'OK, you get me a song and a producer and I'll do it your way.' For a while, the producer was more important than the artist, which is kind of an unhealthy situation because the production should really enhance the artist. But with me, I was getting buried in it. Beautiful string sections, beautiful arrangements, but I sounded like I was that big," he said, closing his thumb and forefinger into a tiny gap. Neither of the two Boylan albums proved particularly successful in the marketplace, and Rick grew to hate the overproduced records.
Homer, Sheree (2012). Rick Nelson, rock 'n' roll pioneer. In 1968, Boylan produced one more Nelson album, Perspective. Besides production, he wrote three songs: "Stop by My Window," "The Lady Stayed with Me," and co-wrote with Nelson "Hello to the Wind (Bonjour Le Vent)." Nelson later admitted, "Perspective with those songs was a complete experiment and those Steve Miller type sound effects between tracks were my idea.... I'm not sorry I did those things because, if anything, it made up my mind as to the way I wanted to go." He went back to the basics: "I just simplified the whole thing and went back to the formula of drums, bass, and guitar. That's where I'd always been most effective."

These sources provide significant critical commentary and historical context. In combination with the Allmusic review this meets the GNG standard. Jfire (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that research, Jfire! I think now that the subject has been shown to pass notability standards it would be better to draftify per the outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Fever and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Lights and Country Music (Rick Nelson album), which are by the same page creator. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to draftify. I've expanded the article using these sources. Jfire (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks so much for your work on that! Since I believe all the concerns I and other editors have mentioned should be fixed now, I'm willing to withdraw. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: with the new sources cited above, it's a keep. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Ireland[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NAUTHOR. KH-1 (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- I stand corrected - those book reviews did not show up in my original Google search. I withdraw this nomination.-KH-1 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a few reviews of her book Don't Take Your Snake for a Stroll here, including by Kirkus Reviews and School Library Journal. Mooonswimmer 14:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3 and multiple reviews for multiple works; I have added reviews and additional works to the article, and according to her biography at Encyclopedia.com, additional works and reviews WP:NEXIST, so this article can be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Beccynr & Moonswimmer's research, seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldo Córdoba[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Withdrawing nomination. Many references on the Spanish wikipedia page. Simione001 (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gohé[edit]

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the New Caledonia national football team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Front[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP; lacks coverage in multiple reliable independent sources that address the subject of the article directly and in depth. Existing sources are autobigraphical, trade publications (where the presumption is against their use in establishing notability), press releases, or churnalism. Jfire (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Organizations, and Maryland. Jfire (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP. References are passing mentions, routine announcements, or otherwise unreliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news, annoucements and some PR. scope_creep^Talk 08:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a page for Stage Front Stadium but the business the stadium is named after is not notable enough for a page? Stravensky (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stadium was recently renamed as the Stage Front Stadium after a sponsorship deal, that doesn't contribute towards WP:NCORP. Mooonswimmer 14:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer I looked through the other companies listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ticket_sales_companies before submitting this. Stage Front has more news references and exclusive partnerships and sponsorships than half of them. We can try to find more in depth profiles, but it feels arbitrary to just go after this one especially if you compare it to any on that list aside from the big 3. Like Brown Paper Tickets and Bookitbee are the first two I clicked on and have nowhere near the notability as Stage Front. Stravensky (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Other stuff exists" is an argument to avoid at AfD. The relative notability of these companies is debatable, and even if Stage Front is the most notable of the three, that needs to be demonstrated with sources showing that it meets the standards set by WP:NCORP. Jfire (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The organization is “notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” This article does not meet any of these criteria: not multiple, not reliable, no significant coverage.Topjur01 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 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 consensus here is to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion[edit]

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

Unsourced article. I was not able to find any collection of heroes from the Anglican Communion nor from its associated denominations. This list seems redundant as the concept of hero in Anglicanism was already covered in Saints in Anglicanism, and the function of cataloging theologically important figures in Anglicanism was covered by Category:Anglican saints. Since the title of this page is not a likely searched term, deletion seem more suitable than redirect. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Religion, and Christianity. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems to be an attempt to provide of list of people venerated as saints in Anglicanism, a topic not comprehensively covered by Saints in Anglicanism but certainly not described in an NPOV fashion in this list. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think unfortunately delete makes sense, as the whole subject is too fuzzy. The Anglican communion is already a large and not entirely unified selection of people who will all have different figures they admire, and the concept of "hero" was almost intended to avoid the formal approach of the Catholic church (a formal approach that makes it easy to define who's on the list). So a list of Anglican heroes is doubly undefined, and if done properly, potentially very long. It's likely to degenerate into a list of influential religious people with no clear boundaries. Many of the individuals on the heroes list are already in the Saints in Anglicanism article, and it might be more helpful to readers to concentrate on the latter rather than have a nearly-forked article. Elemimele (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only is this unsourced, but how were these individuals picked as saints of that church? There's a separate Category:Anglican saints, which also varies. This is just a long unverified list. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of names. No clear list inclusion and no references to validate each entry's inclusion. Ajf773 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand if needed. The topic itself is notable and it is likely that reliable sources on the topic exist and can be added as the article is improved. This should not have been nominated for deletion. For example: https://anglicanjournal.com/all-these-saints-im-supposed-to-be-communing-with-a-primer-on-the-heroes-of-faith/ https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Commemoration_of_Saints_and_Heroes_o.html?id=JkizvwEACAAJ Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how this "hero" is different from "saints". The article you cited use the term "hero" in a generic descriptive sense instead of a distinct concept that somehow qualifies for a whole article, and it does not verify the list of names included in the nominated article. Again, the Anglican concept of "Hero" is already covered in Saints in Anglicanism, unless sufficient evidences exist to prove that "Hero" and "Saint" are different categories in Anglicanism, there is really no point retaining this unreferenced list. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- in/exclusion depends solely on the editor's whim. That is not an appropriate basis for an article. It comes close to WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 22 October 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 Magadh University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.D. College Kaler[edit]

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

BEFORE came up with nothing, sources given are primary. Sohom (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Bihar. Sohom (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magadh University. According to this Times of India article, S.D. College Kaler is a constituent college of Magadh University. Mooonswimmer 14:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magadh University, the above seems to be correct. - Indefensible (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magadh University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:04, 20 October 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 Magadh University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatehpur Sanda College[edit]

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

BEFORE does not bring up anything, current sourcing is only 1 press release and 1 primary sources neithier of which show notability. Sohom (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Bihar. Sohom (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magadh University. - Indefensible (talk) 20:59, 17 October 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!} 23:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dilse[edit]

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

No reliable reviews. I removed all questionable sources (no wiki link). Remaining 8 sources confirm that the film released and nothing else. Could redirect to Dil Se... DareshMohan (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep because production has attracted relative attention (I am not sure all sources removed from the page were not appropriate, but maybe that's just me); if not, redirect to List of Telugu films of 2023. The film is not a remake of Dil Se.., is it? Why would we redirect the page there, if it is not?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: I agree with your vote but I feel the article will be stronger had it had two reliable reviews. It is not a remake like you said. The name is a common misspelling of Dil Se. However, I had to remove unreliable sources because of the promotional tone. DareshMohan (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 17 October 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. Please add newly found sources to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Molinelli[edit]

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

Article is sourced to the subject's website, YouTube, and other sources like press releases which lack independence from the subject. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. 4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable as a composer/musician/conductor, I think something like WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER, WP:NCREATIVE should be satisfied, possibly WP:BASIC. It's likely most of the coverage will not be in English language here.
1. There's quite a bit of SIGCOV of his music direction for in this German De Gruyter book Die Interaktion zwischen Dirigent:in und Musiker:innen in Orchesterproben: [21]
2. WP:COMPOSER / WP:MUSICBIO for various pieces including
  1. "Lady Walton's Garden" [22][23]
  2. Tango Seasons [24][25]

Not sure on how independent this is, but there's a bio credited to a Cecilia Farinelli in the Barilla historical archive (yes that Barilla) [26], also seems to be in one or more books put out by that company [27]

—siro χ o 08:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources above seem ok, I'd incorporate them into the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naples Invitational[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG due to a lack of non-primary, independent sources. Let'srun (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Basketball. Let'srun (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant, independent coverage of the tournament itself. Mooonswimmer 14:33, 17 October 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] [1]

[1]