Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 08 October 10 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Shah Qadri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP Zsohl(Talk) 14:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Pakistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fixed the existing two archived newspaper references and added a new newspaper reference to the article. This person is obviously notable judging from the news coverage he generates in a Google search, though somewhat controversial. Personally, I don't have to agree with his views and beliefs, but he seems to have WP:SIGCOV in reliable international and two Pakistani sources...The Independent newspaper, The Guardian newspaper and two reliable Pakistani newspaper sources...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Revised and improved the two existing newspaper citations, ensuring accuracy and relevance to the article. Added a new newspaper source for further context.--Jasulan.T TT me 15:04, 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! 00:03, 10 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diego García-Borreguero[edit]

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

Procedural nomination; this was blanked by Xapagado with an edit summary implying the subject wants this deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:06, 2 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! 23:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty of news coverage of his sleep research, as well as academic citations to it. Recent versions of the article included some negative allegations, which likely precipitated the request to delete it; I have suppressed those per WP:REVDEL, as they were unsourced and severe. Nothing similar turned up in my news and web searches about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 16 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! 06:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the Gaza War (2008–2009)[edit]

Casualties of the Gaza War (2008–2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge into Gaza War (2008–2009). Much of the information in this article, which began as a split from the main artile, is contained within the main Gaza War (2008–2009) article. No need for a separate article, that does not bring substantially new material or material that can't just be added to the main article (it's not much). Now that we're 15 years from the events, we have a much better idea about what is important and critical for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 09:20, 2 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, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I had thought to merge until I saw Gaza War (2008–2009) was far to long for that. This split was a good idea. If some other split is preferable, or if the main article can be beneficially edited down enormously, I'd support merge but not otherwise. Duplicated content in the main article should be removed. Thincat (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much better to write a decent lead paragraph for this one, and leave it as a stand-alone list. The above suggested Gaza War (2008–2009) has in excess of 500+ inline citations, and is extremely detailed. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The parent article, Gaza War (2008–2009), is grossly overlength, and if anything, more details would be better split out to here, not the other way around. The initial premise of the split was fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 15 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 23:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Metyolkin[edit]

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

This was discussed in 2017, and due to low participation (with one of three editors being the creator, a single-purpose account) it reached no consensus. Very little has changed since, and it's still not clearly a notable subject. Renominating in the hopes of a more robust discussion. ~TPW 16:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Metyolkin and did not get automatically populated due to the name change. ~TPW 16:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Ukraine. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cyrillic script always presents a problem when trying to establish notability. This article, however, seems to be a direct translation from the user who created the Russian and Ukrainian versions. It is a SPA in English. Many of the links go to various pages of http://fond-kd.ru . The article of a living artist is stale, and no way to update it in English. Dead link to the artist's web site I am not finding sources for the unsourced biography section. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is it canvassing to ping the editor who nominated this for deletion the first time? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm going to have to say d*lete on this article. The biographical section is entirely unsourced. The sourcing for the rest of the article (which reads like a resume/CV) is referenced to a lot of primary sources, calendar listings and what looks like art sales or upload sites. It seems they are a run-of-the-mill landscape painter like hundreds of thousands of others around the world. WP:MILL There is nothing that seems to make this painter notable; it just seems like he is "doing his job" making paintings. Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 11 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 12:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lok Poll[edit]

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

No credible claim of notability TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No coverage of the company found, only mentions in various polls, some hint of fabricated data in stories that pop up. What's used in the article for sourcing isn't RS or helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superficial coverage, not notable. --Assirian cat (talk) 12:49, 10 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 14:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tirumala Rama Idol[edit]

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

No "Significant coverage". All references in the article pertain to publications by the governing body of the Tirumala temple, TTD. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 2 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, 9 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 23:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Siddiqui[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and artist-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:46, 2 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 23:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Internet Archive can bypass the paywall. It's a passing mention. WP:BEFORE didn't reveal anything better. Jfire (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of significance. No indication of any works created or any exhibitions attended. No images of any works on Google or Bing image search. No indication of works in any archives, for example art.net. Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 17:03, 14 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. As this is primarily due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Ecology Award[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. Merging to Marsh Charitable Trust could be acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Biology, and Environment. UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ, both to the notability criterion not being fulfilled and merging to Marsh Charitable Trust being a solution.
    1. The Marsh Ecology Award is a prestigious award in the science of ecology, just like the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is a prestigious award in the science of economy. Most of the recipients are notable enough outside academia to have biographic entries.
    2. The prize is given by the Marsh Charitable Trust and the British Ecological Society in cooperation. Merging under either of the two isn't really an option.
    Surely, the entry could be improved, more sources added etc. But that's not what is discussed here, is it?
    Perhaps, it could be made a list, with links from the MCT and BES entries. Hhbruun (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! It's common for participants in AfD discussions to summarise their opinion in a single word, which is usually bolded; see WP:AFDFORMAT. I suppose you're !voting to keep? Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 20:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tough one, because this does seem to be a noteworthy award, but I'm having a hard time finding sources that are independent of the award or the Marsh Charitable Trust. Best I could do is this: [1]. This seems like it would be an endemic problem for awards in certain disciplines that don't attract much media attention, much like the recent debate over whether academic journals can be considered notable by being indexed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:52, 25 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! 19:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, is there any support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This award is clearly not comparable in notability to a Nobel prize. The Nobel prizes receive extremely wide, independent press coverage around the globe every year. Winners of Marsh Ecology Award get a press release about it from their employer or institution, and that's about it. The sole independent coverage I could find, after looking for quite a while, is a directory entry in Gale's Awards, honors & prizes. This doesn't cut it for WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 21:21, 13 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 23:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kulturanova[edit]

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

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources.(Since May 2021)

Only Has 2 Sentences & an Infobox, 3 primary sources. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Serbia. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought it was probably notable when I cleaned it up, but language is an issue and neither draft in Serbian nor are of help as they're the same sources. I wasn't able to take it further, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 00:01, 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! 19:10, 2 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! 23:16, 9 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 23:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint Nicholas Thaumaturgus (International)[edit]

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

Nonnotable order issued by a nonnotable organization - Altenmann >talk 16:18, 25 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! 19:20, 2 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, 9 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. As this is primarily due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy A[edit]

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

Fantasy A is a Rapperactorsongwriterproducerauthor and fails WP:GNG as well as every other guideline that touches the subject's chosen specialties for notability. Coverage is Seattle media only, interview-based and references his habit of creating posters advertising his work and pasting them around... Seattle... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage is not all interview-based. Though most of the media is Seattle based, Seattle is a major metropolitan city and the outlets, such as The Seattle Times, The Stranger, and KUOW, have reader/listenership well outside the metro area. KUOW (cited twice), for example, has broadcast continually since 1952 across the entire Puget Sound region. I've added two new citations from non-Seattle sources--from Kitsap and Pierce counties, respectively. One of the original sources I added is arguably international, since it is a news agency that started in Nairobi, Kenya in 1995 and serves an international readership of the Somali diaspora population. 1Tytonidae1 (talk) 21:56, 29 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! 19:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if recent expansion of the article and new sources were evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 9 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. No objection to starting again but can we just try using RS only next time Spartaz Humbug! 05:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Files sources and analogues[edit]

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

This is a very poorly referenced article (many if not most of the sources are unreliable - homepages, fanpages, UFO fan sites, etc.). Even if the topic is notable, WP:TNT is likely in order - and it's not like the article, nor my BEFORE, even confirm this meets WP:GNG in the first place. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have editors advocating Deletion, Redirection/Merging and Draftification. Need some more opinions to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The fictional and historical elements that inspired and influenced the X-Files is already covered at The X-Files#Production, which contains the same information that is present here, only its actually being supported by reliable sources over there. Much of the information here is either unsourced, or based on unreliable fansites, so there is nothing that should be merged over. I am not seeing any reason for the topic to actually be split out into a separate article when, again, it is already adequately covered at the main article on the series. Rorshacma (talk) 22:43, 2 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! 23:10, 9 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! 06:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Miller (physician)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional participation is required to establish consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 20:49, 25 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! 19:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Since some think that the "awards" he has won make this fellow notable, I decided to look some of them up. "(2014) SAEM Young Investigator Award, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine;[4]" I couldn't find this on the SAEM site. It is possible that the site doesn't go back that far, but in any case I cannot consider this a major award. Looking at other sources, none are of the 3-rd party type that we prefer. Most are his name in a directory. There are no sources for all but one sentence of the biographical information. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 6 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, CycloneYoris talk! 23:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have the impression that 2600:6C42:7400:3CB6:1893:53BC:3D1F:F6CD (located in southern Illinois) is very close to the subject of the article, if not the subject himself. Regardless of that, I see nothing in the article to suggest notability. Athel cb (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPROF. I agree with previous comments that the awards really don't contribute to notability. The only thing that gave me pause for a bit was criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. From what I can find, International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science is a low-impact journal that hangs around 0.7, so no pass on that criteria either. This comes across more as a WP:NOTCV article too. KoA (talk) 01:44, 13 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! 06:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solitudes à deux[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and France. UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This confirming it was re-issued after he passed [2] and this review from a French-Canadian newspaper [3]. I can probably dig up more album reviews from old newspaper archives. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And on page 2, box on the lower left [4], from Switzerland. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Oaktree b's good work. Also, Johnny Halliday was a big deal in France back in his day. @Oaktree b, can you add those refs to the article?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 10 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! 06:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C-MAC (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There are not two meanings, so there is no need for a disambiguation page. C-MAC is the only meaning. Kpratter (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

it is neccesary due to ther ebeing two very similar pages whith one character different in the title. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
then it could be just redirected to CMAC (disambiguation). Kpratter (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It should have been redirected to CMAC (disambiguation) in the first place. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A distinguish hatnote in C-MAC is the simplest solution. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect to CMAC (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:02, 9 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaaha Rocks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be great to get a second opinion on the searches done to see whether this subject is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No evidence of significant coverage to establish notability. The sources above are just passing mentions within coverage of other topics with no content that could be used to write an article. –dlthewave ☎ 04:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. None of the references added since nomination are even remotely sufficient or appropriate. The only thing we have here is basic existence and location, with nothing else about this particular group of rocks. Even an image was added inappropriately -- it appears to be of a different, nearby group of rocks, with a caption added conflating the two. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean about conflating, the commons image is titled by the uploader "Ahaaha Rocks". You state that the article is existence and location, with nothing else about which makes me think you have not read it. Lightburst (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The title of an image on Commons is not a sufficient basis on which to make that claim. Even the description doesn't mention the Ahaahas, but a separate nearby group. The best specific identification in that article is the map from the NZ gazetteer, which indicates that there are exactly three such rocks that make up this group. Can you identify which of the three in that picture are the correct ones? Even if you could, it would probably be OR. And "which makes me think you have not read it"...I certainly have, and I've looked at the sources in detail, the only ones that even mention the subject of the article only do so in a most basic existence/location manner. Have you? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the image. According to the description, the view is "The southern Noises Islands, looking south towards Auckland" which would put Ahaaha Rocks between the camera and the islands. The rocks are not visible anywhere in the foreground. –dlthewave ☎ 01:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At this time, this meets WP:GEONATURAL, as there is sufficient verifiable information in the article. Call it a WP:HEY, perhaps. —siroχo 01:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way does any source discuss these rocks in a way that meets "... provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", as specified by GEONATURAL? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been significantly expanded since nomination and that condition is met multiple times over. —siroχo 03:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But none of the sources are about the purported subject of the article...you can't claim significant expansion on a WP:COATRACK. Can you even point to one source that's more than a passing mention/coordinates? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GEONATURAL easily. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How? None of the sources even remotely discuss the topic beyond existence and location. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sources in the Etymology section discuss the origins of the word "Ahaaha" but do not mention the Ahaaha Rocks. There's currently a talk page discussion about whether or not these should be included, but regardless of that outcome they do not contribute to notability. –dlthewave ☎ 00:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that point. I believe GEONATURAL is met without the etymology section. —siroχo 03:18, 16 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Ghafari[edit]

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

Amin Ghafari

Contested AFC submission of biography of violinist who does not appear to satisfy musical notability. A draft was submitted twice and declined twice, so then this article, which appears to be identical to the declined drafts, was copied into article space. (This is not a copy-paste because there is only one author.) The article (like the draft) has been reference-bombed, so a source analysis has not been performed, at least not now. The peacock language is strongly suggestive of conflict of interest. If the originator wants to establish notability, they can specify which three sources should be evaluated. I have spot-checked the sourced, and they are largely primary, such as mentions of his performance in concerts (and playing in concerts is what violinists do). There is already a (declined) draft, so if the article does not establish musical notability or general notability, and it does not, it should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO as the first place winner of an international violin competition. This is a significant enough competition that there are certainly press articles in Japanese on this violinist that have not been included here. Additionally, there is enough secondary significant coverage in Iranian press already cited in the article to pass WP:GNG. While I agree with many of the copy editing criticisms made by the nominator, I don't think there is a strong argument to be made that the subject is not notable under both SNG and GNG guidelines. The issues with the article can be solved by editing in main space.4meter4 (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dxneo (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Non of the above show sources and clearly does not meet MUSICBIO #9 dispite above claims. BEFORE showed nothing, AfC rejected it twice. No WP:IS WP:RS sources with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth have been found, let alone article soucing that meets BLP. If for some reason article is not deleted the PEACOCKing needs to be removed.  // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All websites of Iran's official newspaper reported about their positions and awards. Musicians or musical groups (of any kind: singers, orchestras, DJs, musical theater groups, etc.) are famous when they meet at least one of the following criteria: the subject of several credible published works that are authoritative and independent of the musician or group be This criterion includes published works of any kind (newspaper articles, books, magazines, television documentaries, and online resources), except for: those in which an individual or group of musicians spoke about themselves or promoted themselves. they pay that the article I wrote was never a personal interview of them. Have a nationally distinguished work that is included in the national music rankings of a country (such as the Billboard charts). He won the foreign prize of Osaka. Be the winner or nominee of an important music award (such as Grammy Award, Juno Award, etc.). win an important music competition. So if you are an editor, try to help Wikipedia. Not to delete suitable and relevant and healthy articles with the help of tags. My goal is to improve the articles Khtibkiarash (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nominator's and Timothy's reasons. That competition does not have an article, it's not clear if it's notable or significant. Tehonk (talk) 17:41, 9 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! 23:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am an older Iranian user and also contribute to the English Wikipedia. I've reviewed the article about this individual and can confirm that he is recognized in Iran. He is the official winner of an international competition. However, due to the inadequacies in the article's content, many believe he isn't well-known. The article should be retained, as he is a prominent violinist in Iran, and his music is frequently played on all Iranian television channels. Please don't consider deletion based on misinformation. I kindly suggest that the administrators research this individual's name on Google, or using his Farsi name, for clarity. I recommend retaining the article and asking the original author to address the minor issues.
Alirezajamshidimajd (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a paid spam. Maliner (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz I am also concerned by the single purpose account of the article's creator and their vote. Maliner (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz likewise, checking the crosswiki edits, I'm pretty certain both Khtibkiarash and Alirezajamshidimajd belong to this sock farm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aliasghar_ghorbandokht Tehonk (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The appropriate action to take then is to contact a checkuser or file an SPI. I don't have the ability to investigate your suspicions. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I report your slander. Your words smell of accusation. Khtibkiarash (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails in WP:GNG, no have any notable music work nd also fails in Musicbio Worldiswide (talk) 03:28, 12 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. This is unsourced and sources arguably do not exist. I don't see how we can maintain an article that is not OR in these circumstances. On that basis I would accept the argument that V takes precedence over the SNG.

We have been here many times before and when faced with a core policy indicating deletion against an SNG supporting inclusion the answer is always to revisit the the SNG. On that basis the policy based argument is that this is an unsourced article that cannot be sourced. Spartaz Humbug! 05:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M43 (Durban)[edit]

M43 (Durban) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. WP:GEOROAD states "topic notability for county roads... are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject" which there is no evidence of. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 09:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Africa. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 09:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep because this isn't even a county road. WP:GEOROAD clearly says "national, state and provincial highways are typically notable." So this is a flawed nomination. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 12:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per LilianaUwU, this is not a county road and does meet the notability criteria for GEOROAD. The metropolitan routes in South Africa are more similar to state/provincial routes in other countries. Dough4872 13:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It says it's maintained by eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality. Wouldn't that be a county? ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Routes like NY 895 are maintained by New York City, but that doesn't make them any less of a state highway, no? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 14:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but they have sources that meet WP:GNG to make them notable. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 00:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:N, actual policy, an article only needs to meet GNG or an SNG. GEOROAD is the SNG here. If the other editors here say that this topic meeds GEOROAD, then it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't meet GNG, per policy, a fact that many editors seem to have forgotten. Imzadi 1979 → 03:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the SNG says "county roads... are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject" which this article does not have. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 04:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N isn't a policy, it's a guideline. See the box at the top of the page cf: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline". That's why GMHM and my comments are about policies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GEOROAD as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only source is one saying it was renamed, and I can't find any other sources, also not a suitable redirect term. To those advocating WP:GEOROAD, remember that is a guideline while WP:V and WP:DP are policies. If this was notable, I'd create No Name Street, Sandwich as it has as much coverage in reliable sources as this street. ([5]) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This seems like one that needs a long explanation. @Ritchie333:'s rationale seems to be solid. The WP:GEOROAD automatic notability covers Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways - but this does not appear to one of those: our article describes it as a a short metropolitan route and Metropolitan Routes in Durban describes it as intra-city. In this case it appears our guide allows this article to be kept if there is multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject.. My WP:BEFORE has shown me that there is none to be found Even Google maps does not seem to recognize the road as significant. Ping me if anyone can come up with RS and I will change my ivote. Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Metropolitan route networks predate the current municipal framework in South Africa, and were designed as intercity route networks. The fact that the municipal boundaries were expanded doesn’t change this fact (and in the cases of Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni they still do cross modern municipal boundaries). So they are not, strictly “intra-city” as these municipalities are enornmous and polycentric made up of separate cities and towns (I vaguely recall that the there was a political idea mooted to abolish provinces and replace them with municipalities which are a more valid second-tier government structure). So these routes are provincial in nature. Park3r (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Flawed nomination, I see nothing wrong with the article. Just needs to be expanded a little bit with more references. Plus, there's plenty of articles on Wikipedia, similar to this article, that look like this. Geko72290 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But how is it meet wikipedias notability standards?
    Just needs to be expanded a little bit with more reference - References don't exist, if you find any, perhaps add them.
    there's plenty of articles on Wikipedia, similar to this article - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ––– GMH MELBOURNE 22:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale is tough @Geko72290: because you have said Just needs to be expanded a little bit with more references.. But there are none to be found, if they WP:NEXIST the participants here, and myself, are unable to find them. Most of the other keeps here come from the belief that this intra-city route has automatic notability based on our guideline, but I believe that it does not. From your rationale you believe it can be expanded with sources, but it cannot because they do not exist. Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 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. A consensus to delete is not going to emerge here. A discussion on whether to merge or not can continue on the article's talkpage and does not require a relist Star Mississippi 11:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords[edit]

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

Almost entirely primary sourced, Wikipedia is not a game guide, Keywords from unrelated sets are not generally discussed as a group by sources as required by WP:LISTN. I am aware of the three previous AfDs, but I believe Wikipedia's standards have tightened in the last 11 years and it is time to re-evaluate. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as a table into Magic: The Gathering rules. We don't need 175 individual subsections, each on a word as used in a game. BD2412 T 22:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you feel that having a 175 entry table would be an improvement to that merge target? Hobit (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined toward keep as just as good a glossary article as any (albeit on a not very serious topic), though it could be reformatted using the glossary templates instead of using section markup. I think merging this into the main MTG article would result in a size problem and just eventually another split-out. But, prefer merge over deletion. I haven't pored over the previous discussions in detail yet, and am not sure yet how to evaluate the claim that "Wikipedia's standards have tightened in the last 11 years and it is time to re-evaluate"  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MTG rules page, and rewrite as a glossary/defn list. MTG is large enough that its keyword list should be included, but without anything but primary sources, no more than one or two sentences on each keyword are needed. --Masem (t) 14:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge (Amended. Daranios (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)) I am agreeing with SMcCandlish, and there is at least a limited amount of treatment in secondary sources: Game Design Deep Dive, Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design, How to play Magic: the Gathering – A beginner’s guide. And more on individual keywords, as indicated by Jclemens in the last deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All those sources establish, IMO, is that the evergreen keywords should be listed at Magic: The Gathering rules (and, now that I think about it, oddly aren't). The sort of source that could convince me this list deserves to exist is something like this from Dicebreaker (but one source can't by itself support an article), not brief discussions of the concept of keywords, or lists or just the evergreen ones.
    Consider this: all of the sources provided (that include a list at all) include it in the context of a broader article on the rules. That seems to imply that Wikipedia should do the same, and not have a separate article on the subject. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, keep or merge then. It's a question of size in the end. If someone prefers to merge it into the rules article in a reasonable way, considering the possibility to split it out again if it becomes too large, I am not opposed to that. Daranios (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources meet the GNG. Yes, there is a potential merge target, but to merge even a fraction of this would be a WP:WEIGHT issue. Yes, it's geeky. Yes, it thinks about being a WP:GAMEGUIDE issue, but it's not. It lists rules (most of which have independent, reliable sources). Many of this keywords themselves meet the GNG. Yes, it feels somehow less important, than say our numerous articles on chess. But it meets our guidelines and is frankly a reasonable breakout article. It could use a bit more context/framing for certain, but that's not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 23:16, 14 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. Sourcing is insufficient. If the show is deemed notable, and an article is created, happy to provide the history here for a merger Star Mississippi 11:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Sutton (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Co-founder of GaS Digital Network which is also at AfD. The references are interviews or mentions but nothing significant to meet WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a very little notability here but it is nowhere near the minimum required for an article. We need significant coverage by reliable sources. Searching for better sources uncovers one passing mention in a book. That's not going to get us very far. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sutton is notable for his radio program The Tour Bus, which was in syndication in several markets and lasted from 1999 to 2017, and which isn't currently covered in the article that was started for him; I've found several articles about the show. I've been (albeit slowly) piecing together a better article in my sandbox.
Some sources I've found about The Tour Bus include the following articles found via newspapers.com: Asbury Park Press, The Herald-News, the New Jersey Daily Record, The Courier-News, and this article from the Star-Gazette that focuses on his appearance on an episode of Queer Eye in its first season.
As for his work in podcasting, he was featured in articles from Entrepreneur magazine, and Vice, plus there are bits and pieces I've found about him in articles about comedians Tim Dillon, Shane Gillis and Big Jay Oakerson.
Hopefully that will suffice to keep the article from being deleted. Marchije•speak/peek 13:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought the same, and on its face the references available online appear to show notability. However, when you dig deeper you will see the Entrepreneur source is an interview where he gives advice about how to start a podcast (not significant coverage of him) and the Vice article is discussing the GaS company he started and doesn't go into depth about him. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, the Entrepreneur article doesn't go into depth about him personally, but the fact a magazine devoted to entrepreneurs chose to speak with him about the podcasting business does at least lend some credibility to the fact that his knowledge and experience in that sphere is notable. Regardless, his radio career was covered a fair bit, and some of the newspaper articles about his radio show do go into him in some depth, particularly the Daily Record article. Marchije•speak/peek 01:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Star Gazette is the only reference that would even come close to being significant so I would not say that his radio career was "covered a fair bit." Everything else is just a mention of his name along with the show and notability is not inherent. I realize that Entrepreneur decided to reach out to him and while it may show that he is a credible source for them, saying he is notable because they decided to reach out is original thought. Notability is about what is said about the subject in the sources, not the fact a source reached out to someone for information.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I agree with your statement that "Notability is about what is said about the subject in the sources, not the fact a source reached out to someone for information," which is why I couched my statement with "it does at least lend some credibility..." Although, I had hoped that coverage in seven different third-party sources might fall under WP:BASIC, which states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I tend to be more of an inclusionist. My edits on Wikipedia, by and large, come from trying to improve poorly sourced articles, or at times rescuing articles flagged for deletion. I had hoped to do that with the Ralph Sutton article, but I'll wait and see how this AfD pans out. Marchije•speak/peek 12:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if there was a little more depth to them. Even a paragraph or two that talks about him, but these are passing mentions and about the shows. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The single interview reference is not enough by a long chalk. His podcasting may be popular and sufficiently notable for an article but he is not notable. The coverage is dreadful. scope_creepTalk 06:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep He has also been interviewed on a lot of other podcasts. Would that be helpful? Stravensky (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY. They can't be used to establish notability. It needs WP:SECONDARY sourcing, people talking to other people about Sutton, who don't know him. That is the gold standard. The WP:BLP policy states: "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". These is no high-quality sources here for this individual. scope_creepTalk 19:08, 15 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! 19:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GaS Digital Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A BEFORE found mentions but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. The first three references on the page are reliable sources but they are not in-depth about the company. CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete There is a little bit of coverage but nothing much in depth from high quality sources. The Hollywood Reporter article seems to be about as good as it gets. It doesn't seem like enough for an article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:30, 9 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! 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Haxhillari[edit]

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

Had a very brief professional career in the first quarter of 2014 then disappeared. My WP:BEFORE search did not yield any significant coverage in any language and so I do not see any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 9 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! 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiz Muradov[edit]

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

Seems to be a massive case of WP:TOOSOON at best. He has only played one minute of professional football to date and my WP:BEFORE search did not yield any decent sources in English or Azerbaijani. There is no evidence that this Soccerway stub complies with the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 9 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 List of NASCAR tracks. Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR Cup Series tracks[edit]

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

More coherent article already exists: List of NASCAR tracks. Tableguy28 (talk) 18:51, 9 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! 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lam[edit]

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

Nothing on the face of this article on a "Dallas-based facial plastic surgeon with an expertise in hair and skin treatment" meets encyclopedic notability. The article references "scientific papers and textbooks" but nothing on Google Scholar stands out (once hits for the similarly-named "Samuel S. K. Lam" are set aside). Neither an organizational "Surgeon of the Month" honor, nor multiple board certifications, carry any weight towards notability. BD2412 T 18:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 18:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: PROMO for a local surgeon. No sourcing found, there was a pastor with the same name that passed away. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How many people can claim they were: "awarded the 'Nasal Knowledge Competition' gold medal"? That's not nothin' in the world of nose professionals. Regrettably however, despite this distinctive honor, Dr. Lam is non-notable in this world of Wikipedia editors and we must delete this infomercial.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotion masquerading as an article. Sources provide nothing substantive to suggest WP:GNG or another notability criterion is met. --Kinu t/c 15:11, 10 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! 06:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Out the Moon[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and song-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dxneo (talk) 16:55, 9 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! 06:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Vix[edit]

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

I couldn't find any sources to establish notability; the only RS was a TOI article that appears to just be a reprint of a puff piece from another website. AryKun (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dxneo (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not sure the awards are notable; happy to be corrected on this point. The only things I find are the usual round of streaming sites and social media links Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 9 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) 16:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Awards[edit]

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

No indication of notability under WP:GNG; lack of coverage in suitable sources. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:59, 9 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 Critique of the Kantian philosophy. Viable ATD. History remains should consensus emerge for a merge. Star Mississippi 11:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of Immanuel Kant's schemata[edit]

Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of Immanuel Kant's schemata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly quotes, based on a single secondary source (Kelly's Kant's Philosophy as Rectified by Schopenhauer). Used to be even more essay-like than now, but still seems so. Has had an original research tag for a few months and I tend to agree. Not seeing anything obviously worth salvaging or a clear merge target. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • SUPPORT DELETION: Aside from being about 85% direct quotes, I do not believe this article meets Wikipedia's threshold eligibility requirements. Its only secondary source is a book from 1909 by an author who does not have a PhD. If there is anything important here that is not included at Critique_of_the_Kantian_philosophy#Schemata, it could be added as a bullet to that outline/article. The argument, however, already seems to be covered there just as well in much less space (albeit with zero supporting citations of any kind). Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a WP:POVFORK from Critique of the Kantian philosophy, and there is simply no way that I can come up with an excuse to pass WP:GNG 1 or 2 on this one. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect into Critique of the Kantian philosophy as an alternative to deletion. I'm not a philosopher, but it does seem like this article does duplicate the scope of the other article (mentioned above), and the title does seem like a reasonably plausible search term. Duckmather (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input @Duckmather. I'm not particularly experienced with redirects, is this really a plausible search term? I suppose obscure redirects wouldn't generally do much harm anyway. If I may ask, what content would you want to potentially merge into Critique of the Kantian philosophy?. That article has a bunch of issues, and content from this page being pasted there would not improve it, as far as I can see. It's mainly a mix of OR and lengthy quotations. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:39, 16 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 14:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Pandzic[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a model, not reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria for models. The only obvious attempt at a notability claim here is that she exists, with absolutely no documented evidence of the kind of noteworthy achievements that it takes to bridge the gap between existence and notability -- the content is primarily biographical trivia of the "hobbies and favourite travel destinations" variety rather than substantive analysis of her career, and it's referenced entirely to primary sources and blogs rather than WP:GNG-building coverage about her in real media.
Absolutely nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more coverage in reliable sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 9 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 Downhere. ✗plicit 23:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two at a Time: Sneak Peeks & B-Sides[edit]

Two at a Time: Sneak Peeks & B-Sides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 9 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! 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Prez[edit]

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

Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, Florida, and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes criteria 4c of WP:CREATIVE as the band was the main subject of a documentary film made by the STARZ network. I doubt WP:BEFORE was followed by the nominator as there is tons of press coverage (in just The New York Times for examples [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) and many books with WP:SIGCOV in a basic google searches. (examples [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] etc.) They are even in the title of this academic book Brian Norcross (2005). From Dylan to Dead Prez: The Urban Folk Tradition in Contemporary Protest Music. University of Wyoming Press. Easily and obviously passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily. I sincerely wonder if the nominator did a WP:BEFORE search, given the more than robust sources found by the last voter. WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP are relevant here too, because the article needs improvement but that should be through the standard editing process. I also found these: [25], [26], and the biography at AllMusic [27] carries weight around here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as the New York Times, AllMusic and book sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 14 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 14:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Off the Radio Vol. 4: Revolutionary but Gangsta Grillz[edit]

Turn Off the Radio Vol. 4: Revolutionary but Gangsta Grillz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 9 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 2015 (company). Star Mississippi 11:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Studios[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and company-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge. I am unable to find a source which touches on the company in detail. Either delete per nom, or merge per above. --I.R.B.A.T(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files) 17:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above; seems a valid alternative to deletion. Red Phoenix talk 19:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per above.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:10, 11 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) 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institutional sexism in the Metropolitan Police[edit]

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

This is an incendiary article title, insinuating that sexism in the London Metropolitan Police force is baked in as part of the institution, but the examples and citations cover only the last few years. This might qualify for merging into the main article about the Metropolitan Police, but only if it is not given undue weight compared to the rest of the history of this force. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and England. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Police. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Search "police racism" and "police sexism" on Google Scholar and you will find lots of publications on these topics that appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to pretend that the Metropolitan Police is free of sexism and racism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Comment: The material in this article, along with the material in Institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police, was previously in a section Controversies in the main Metropolitan Police article. This section had become unwieldy, and from a practical point of view, the split was an improvement. There were no comments that the material in the Controversies section was biased. The only possible criticism that I can see which might be applicable to this article is the title – so instead of nominating these 2 articles for deletion, it would be better to suggest different titles. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Work better as standalone articles than a jampacked "Controversies" section, which effectively they still are, since neither article has any incoming mainspace links excepting from Metropolitan Police. They don't even link each other. I struggle to think of an equally concise, less strident title that doesn't alter the scope of the articles. The material is framed from a non-neutral basis, which makes sense given its origin and scope, but it's presented in a neutral enough manner, and is sourced appropriately. Would a {{Main}} hatnote to Metropolitan Police help at all? Folly Mox (talk) 20:56, 9 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 14:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TikGames[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and company-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:18, 9 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.

Szilvia Molnar[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Magnolia677 (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. The sources cited in the article are reviews of her novel, The Nursery, with one source being sponsored content, however, I was unable to locate any biographical information about this person in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Hungary, and Sweden. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is a great example of how a subject's notability can change over the years. The article was previously deleted in 2010 after an AfD, with that deleted article being a prime example of Wikipedia:Too soon. However, today Szilvia Molnar is absolutely notable. This author has not just had reviews in many of the biggest publications in the world such as the New York Times and The Atlantic, but these are also extremely in-depth featured reviews. The article lists several of the biggest reviews but there are also reviews in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, and dozens of other reliable media outlets. Add into this all the other media coverage I'm seeing and Molnar meets our notability guidelines per WP:Author. As a side note, I've added new information and citations to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that her book is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Below is an outline of each source cited in the article:
  • [29] - review of her book.
  • [30] - self-sourced.
  • [31] - interview in "Luna Magazine".
  • [32] - review of her book.
  • [33] - review of her book.
  • [34] - two-sentence long description in "Guernica" magazine of Molnar's works, with one of the sentences describing where she lives.
  • [35] - review of her book in "Bomb" magazine.
  • [36] - interview in "the 19th" magazine. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reviews:
  • [37] (Ebsco/Wikipedia Library link]
  • [38]
  • [39] - review of her book "Soft Split"
  • [40] - German review (paywalled)
  • [41]
Brief mentions about her work in publishing:
Other:
  • [45] - fluffy but reliable and independent profile in the Hungarian version of Glamour magazine.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Author, a creative person is notable for multiple criteria including if "The person's work (or works) has ... (c) won significant critical attention." Notice that criteria says "work (or works)" meaning a single work can prove notability. While it's unusual for an author to become notable for a single book, it does happen and Szilvia Molnar's first novel is one of those examples, winning massive acclaim and notice for Molnar. SouthernNights (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since citations are being listed in this AfD, I wanted to add a few that were missed. See my first post above for the Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews.
  • Keep - notable per all the newly found refs.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The novel is clearly notable. I had previously held that authors must have two reviewed books to count under WP:AUTHOR (apart from cases like Harper Lee), but SouthernNights is making me doubt my interpretation. In any case the earlier chapbook has received some attention as well. Aside from reviews, the coverage brought here of the author appears to satisfy GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 12 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. Nabla (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Allen Tate[edit]

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

Draft:Mark Allen Tate has been declined several times. After the latest decline User:Krstntate22 apparently just copied the content of the draft into a new article regardless. MKFI (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I went the wrong route! This platform gave me the choice to publish via approval or directly.
During the former, the article was declined several times due to not enough sources listed. However, Mark Allen Tate's page was modeled after those of Rick Joy and Al Beadle (who are his peers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Beadle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Joy
Mark Allen Tate's page includes 14 independent, reliable source references. Forgive me, but I am unclear as to why Al Beadle only needs 1 to justify inclusion? Krstntate22 (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Oklahoma. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the number of magazine articles already cited in the article that are substantially about Tate. I don't know what the problem was at AfC, some reviewers think they're there only to accept perfect articles. Sionk (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NB the article needs moving to Mark Tate if it is kept. He's clearly referred to as Mark Tate. Sionk (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sionk. Thanks for weighing in. I can move the page to Mark Tate. Is there a way to easily do that or do I need to recreate it there? Krstntate22 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an easy thing to do, but my recommendation would be to wait for the outcome of this discussion. Sionk (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will. Thank you for your help! Krstntate22 (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page has a critical mass of independent and verifiable references. It is clear that Mark Allen Tate is an accomplished and recognized residential architect. We woefully lack documentation on comparable professionals in other communities and this information will only become more valuable in future.Spaceagepop (talk) 04:55, 15 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) 14:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Singh Lalpura[edit]

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

While @TheChunky:'s edits improved it drastically from its cache recreation, I still think the same issues raised at the prior AFD remain in terms of source independence and depth. See, specifically Nomadicghumakkad's source assessment. Star Mississippi 13:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject may not meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:NPOL, but it's evident that he qualifies under WP:GNG due to substantial coverage in national media. Notably, a prominent national newspaper, Hindustan Times, even using his surname in a headline, further establishing his notability and significance in public discourse. The HT reference is just one example, there is good and enough coverage that covers subject under WP:GNG. Also the past AfD is one year old.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 04:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per The Hindu news report, the chairman's position held by this individual is a notable post in India's national-level politics, as the National Minorities Commission operates at the national level within the government.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 04:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG, and in my opinion, NPOL. AryKun (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, nomadicghumakkad’s source assessment is absolutely ridiculous. They seem to see any syndicated report by PTI as unreliable? PTI is just a news agency, it’s the Indian version of Reuters or AP, and it definitely is independent of the government, so I really struggle to see where he’s coming from. AryKun (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AryKun:, many of the sources fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. For instance, this reference has a byline of "Tribune News Services' which indicates a press release. Same with this one marked as written by "Express News Service." And another one here. I will do a breakdown of the sources tomorrow as I am only on a short time tonight. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheChunky passes WP:GNG due to substantial coverage in the Indian media.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheChunky and others. Passes WP:GNG on the basis of significant coverage in the Indian media. Sal2100 (talk) 22:12, 10 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 12:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Travers[edit]

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

WP:ROTM tv presenter and journalist. References are in the main interviews with her or gossip column style coverage, or passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:13, 9 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 12:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Campbell[edit]

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

WP:ROTM minor TV and radio presenter. Fails WP:BIO. References are primary in the mom, announcements and the like 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:06, 9 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 07:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Arun Jaitley Stadium[edit]

List of international cricket centuries at Arun Jaitley Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTSTATS and the similar deletions at AFD (e.g. here, here or the many deletions here). Subject has not received significant attention, only from statistical databases or for individual entries but not as a group. Fram (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Lists, and India. Fram (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and for all the same reasons that similar lists of centuries at particular grounds articles have been deleted (as mentioned). Ajf773 (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to see how the referenced WP:NOTSTATS applies as that refers to "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" whereas this list has an intro which explains the list clearly. JP (Talk) 08:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, plus the other discussions listed. There is no coverage of the centuries scored on this ground other than statistical listings and reports of the individual centuries themselves. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:21, 10 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 07:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Lights and Country Music (Rick Nelson album)[edit]

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

This album article, in its current state, does not meet any of the musical notability criteria. This is a contested draftification, in that the history shows that it was created in article space, moved to draft space, and created again in article space. There is only one source, which is Allmusic, which should be used with caution, but which is not secondary coverage and so does not establish notability.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 www.allmusic.com Yes No Yes ? No
Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify the work on the page is valuable but not yet ready for mainspace MicrobiologyMarcus (petri dish•cultures) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify sounds good. Many Rick Nelson albums will be individually notable—this one likely is due to his well-known shift into country music but it'll take time to dig up sources from that era. —siroχo 02:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the the album was released in 1966 and does not pass notability now and it was not re-released, why draftify? How is it ever gonna make the news?
    The artist has passed, I don't think there would be a tribute to this 1966 work. dxneo (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was notable at its time, it's notable now, we just need to find the sources. Many may only be on paper or microfiche. Rick Nelson made famous transition from rock to country, and this was his first country album, so it's pretty likely that it's notable, draftifying gives time to unearth sources. —siroχo 16:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify No indication of significance at the moment. Fails WP:SIGCOV but it would be nice to see some real detail put in. scope_creepTalk 16:42, 14 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! 06:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hume's Fork (novel)[edit]

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

WP:BOOKCRIT GraziePrego (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning Keep. From the Ebscosearch, there's a review in Booklist (Pitt, David. Booklist. 3/15/2007, Vol. 103 Issue 14, p23.). I suspect there will be others, as a review of its sequel in NYT says "Cooper's previous novel, "Hume's Fork," drew critical comparisons to "A Confederacy of Dunces"" (Martin, Cameron. Purple Jesus. New York Times Book Review (Dec 12, 2010): BR.24). Espresso Addict (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to keep, per review found by A. B. below. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Philosophers' Magazine review: [46]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. 2 reviews plus passing mentions (including the philosophy world - Connor is a philosophy professor and this book is a satire based on David Hume's "Hume's fork")
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:30, 10 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 delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 00:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Travaglini[edit]

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

Not seeing anything to justify notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL Tehonk (talk) 04:51, 9 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 04:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hungwe Totem[edit]

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

This article has not been sourced for too long. Secondly the creator of the article is linked to the article, he is of Hungwe Totem. Thirdly, the tone of the article is not encyclopedic, it has a motive behind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindthem (talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 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 04:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenno Faustino[edit]

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

Not convinced that there's enough independent coverage to meet WP:NBIOGNG. Sourced primarily to advertorial and PR material. KH-1 (talk) 03:26, 9 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 04:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Veneri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Cited sources are mainly from organizations which employ the subject and lack independence. I was unable to locate any independent sources with in-depth coverage, but there were several with passing mentions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 9 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. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Alisha[edit]

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

Lots of awards but after substantial googling all pretty unimportant. I'm still not 100% sure what a Peetadhipathi is because it's never actually defined on the page the word redirects to, but from the best I can work out it's essentially the leader of a temple. It looks like there's been some serious OR going on here, pretty much every page linked to on this page has 0 reliable citations.

The page for his organisation claims without source to have been created in the 15th century, but is itself a congregation of an occult religion of which the much better sourced article says it was founded in the US in the 19th century? Some crazy stuff going on here on WP:V grounds, but we can definitely start trimming articles on the margins like this. BrigadierG (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify looks like a WP:PROMO to me. DSP2092talk 07:50, 2 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! 02:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify, the article reads like an ad, and is mostly made up by a list of achievements, most of which are unsourced. -I.R.B.A.T(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files) 17:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not sure what this person is (appears to be a religious leader), but the sourcing isn't helpful. I can't find much to support keeping the article. nothing in RS I'd use to write an article Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 9 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. along with the request that some of the sources brought up in this discussion find their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoyodyne[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:GNG/WP:SYNTH (OR) violation: "Yoyodyne is the name of a number of companies, both fictional and real." No source discusses this concept, the few footnotes are primary sources that confirm that yes, a few fictional or real companies used this name. Trivia that's below even the WP:NOTTVTROPES level. My BEFORE failed to find anything of use. Perhaps this could become a disambig or redirect one day but I've no idea what WP:ATD to suggest now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Companies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. We're failing readers with this current article, but we'd fail them more without it. This should be almost entirely focused on the Pynchon element, with perhaps a well-referenced "Legacy and influence" section. There's not a good single merge target. It could go to The Crying of Lot 49, but that's neither the origination nor will it be able to properly capture the scope.
    1. A few pages of SIGCOV in Ralph Clare, Fictions Inc.: The Corporation in Postmodern Fiction, Film, and Popular Culture, Rutgers University Press [47]
    2. There is SIGCOV in Joseph W. Slade's Thomas Pynchon across multiple sections [48]
    3. Sizeable entry of SIGCOV in J. Kerry Grant, A Companion to The Crying of Lot 49, University of Georgia Press [49]
    4. A few paragraphs in Cyrus R. K. Patell ,Negative Liberties: Morrison, Pynchon, and the Problem of Liberal Ideology, Duke University Press [50]
    5. Many other good sources for some verifiable claims, eg. [51][52]
—siroχo 11:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I am hearing is that this needs WP:TNT. Although you are welcome to try to rewrite this now? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Siroxo, but let's not let the identified sources linger in this discussion without being added to the article. I have added some choice snippets from the first source. BD2412 T 02:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I put two interesting links on Talk page (probably some digging needed, but seems to have a lot of depth). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added some sources discussing re-use in popular culture (not just as a name-drop, but signifying a cultural reference). BD2412 T 16:02, 10 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 List of Washington Senators (NFL) players. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pong Unitas[edit]

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

Article created last year in violation of WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 4, providing that: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Here, the article is based solely on databases and lacks any SIGCOV. Article also fails WP:GNG as my searches turned up zero SIGCOV. Further, the subject played only two games as a backup lineman during a period (1921) when the APFA was not the major league that it later became. Redirect to List of Washington Senators (NFL) players is probably the best outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Washington Senators (NFL) players. I made this way back yonder in my youth, but I do agree as I have had others of similar substance, or lack thereof, merged and redirected to other articles. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are in agreement on redirecting. If you can find some SIGCOV, a stand-alone article might be acceptable. Cbl62 (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly couldn’t even prove to you this guy was even real other than the fact that the NFL says he was and that there is a gravestone with his name on it in Baltimore. From what limited access I have from newspapers.com I couldn’t even find as much as an obituary page, not to mention a full-blown article. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have full access to Newspapers.com, did a search, and came up empty. Cbl62 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a paid death notice rather than an independent obituary. The second is a simple roster listing. Neither of them counts toward GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that - that's why I haven't voted "keep". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make sure that others understand, too. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Washington Senators (NFL) players as of now. I'm more than happy to change my !vote if SIGCOV is found. On a sidenote, I'm don't know if he is related to Johnny Unitas but in Johnny's article it says his surname was a result of a phonetic transliteration of a common Lithuanian last name Jonaitis. Alvaldi (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did take a crack at finding some sources on Newspapers.com and Proquest but other than the above mentioned sources, the best I could find are mentions of a player with the second name Unitas playing for the Washington Professionals in 1921. Alvaldi (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Washington Professionals player is the same guy - the team (per our article) was also known as the "Washington Pros" in its one year in the NFL. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:03, 14 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 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago Moio Pace[edit]

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

I think it fails WP:GNG, I was unable to find SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources to justify notability, doesn't seem to have significant achievements as well. Tehonk (talk) 01:03, 9 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! 06:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Okagbue[edit]

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

Appeared on a reality show, acted in a few films, but nothing big and has a few mentions in Nigerian publications but nothing that meets RS or GNG. Doesn't meet notability. Nswix (talk) 00:42, 2 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! 00:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator's reasons. Tehonk (talk) 07:12, 9 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 delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariya Milovidova[edit]

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

Tagged since May, fails WP:GNG, looks promotional. Tehonk (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete. Sources are not particularly high-value publications, and the subject's achievements are not remarkable for the field. BD2412 T 00:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Ukraine. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 04:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article creator has been blocked as a sock and the article may be G5 eligible. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_October_9&oldid=1180765078"