Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 15	August 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2005 Maccabiah Games – Men's 100 metre backstroke[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Also per WP:NOTDATABASE. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Delete all per my previous comments. We need better-developed articles instead of these thinly sliced intersections of an edition per sport. The literature does not support that. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is ridiculous. These pages don't meet the GNG or cite any secondary sources (as far as I could tell). I would suggest merging all of the articles, except that some are entirely unsourced and I'm not sure that we need this many tables (WP:NOTDATABASE). Toadspike (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that we deleted the more general Swimming at the 2005 Maccabiah Games article, we definitely need separate articles for every swimming event at that Games. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the above. After clicking through a few of these I see nothing that would merit a single event having enough notability to merit its own article. Blue Riband► 23:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Amber[edit]

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

Not a notable character in a video game series, could be redirected to Life Is Strange: Before the Storm Bruxton (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Bruxton (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per post-nomination improvements showing RS commentary. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~Merge into Life Is Strange: Before the Storm due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV, which means that the topic does not meet the presumption of a standalone mainspace article according to the threshold mandated by WP:GNG. Even after the recent improvements, the only thing the article creator could come up with is a short paragraph about LGBT representation in Life is Strange generally, as opposed to information which is specifically about what Rachel Amber represents in pop culture or LGBT studies. The current prose can easily fit into the reception section for Before the Storm, or to flesh out a character analysis section for Chloe Price, since Rachel's only out-of-universe relevance is her role in Chloe's story arc and character development throughout the series. There is zero developmental info specifically about the character from a real world perspective, and a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any better sourcing then what is currently cited. Also, and this is addressed to the nominator, I am not sure why you insist on taking this to AfD, when there clearly is a clear solution, an alternative to deletion, which you yourself have suggested in your deletion nomination: either boldly redirect the article to Life Is Strange: Before the Storm, or start a merge discussion if you want to take the temperature on consensus. Haleth (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Haleth: I find that the merge discussions can take a year. My own article titled Temporary art took almost a year even with a unanimous merge/redirect ivote. And a bold redirect can cause friction and reverts. So I usually prefer the quicker and cleaner community and admin endorsed AfD process. Thanks for the message. Bruxton (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do emphathize with your position as it is impractical for editors to patrol the project and close overdue merge discussions. The thing with merge discussions is that, you would have to specifically advertise them in the relevant project page and then request an uninvolved editor to take time out to close the discussion if necessary. As it is, you did not actually provide an appropriate delete rationale, which means other uninvolved editors are entitled, in accordance with this guideline to close your AfD on a speedy keep ground if they see fit. Haleth (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of secondary sources cover this character, so that we now have a well-referenced non-stubby article. That is the goal of WP:GNG in the first place, so Rachel Amber is notable by the standard of that guideline. Daranios (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~Merge (per nom) This article and Steph Gingrich appear to be continuations of all video game characters with a fandom need a Wikipedia article. As with Max Caulfield or Chloe Price, I argue the new cited information of these character articles that is not redundant of the game articles would be feasibly incorporated there for the benefit for readers.

In contrast to these, I find the article Tyler Ronan of a related game shows what a decent article about game sub-element looks like, while I would still argue that it could be redirected and integrated into the main article. IgelRM (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think focusing on other related articles that exists on Wikipedia is relevant to this discussion, unless as a merge and redirect suggestion. The issue to focus on here is whether existing reliable sources provide sufficiently significant attention to this specific character in question, per the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. Haleth (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, altering to merge and redirect as more aligned to my argumentation. No notable sources with the character as the primary topic (as said per nom). I think the context of the author KlayClarx creating these two articles on same topic is relevant. Thanks. IgelRM (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as Gameinformer, PCGamer, Engadget, PopMatters, amid others, all make Rachel Amber one of the primary topics of the article and extensively go into her creation, development, and character. I suppose there's a level of subjectivity for what is characterized is notable — as with other articles on here — but presently available information on Rachel Amber from reliable, secondary sources exceeds that of other articles that have been deemed as meeting this threshold. KlayCax (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of Amber's article simply wouldn't fit in the proposed merger. KlayCax (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for your recent research efforts. Out of these 4 sources, only PopMatters is not an interview about the game with questions about the character. This journal-like article states to be about "confusion and contradictions of life" depicted in the game but describes Rachel's character in detail, while less in the conclusion. I would sum of the bits used from source as "being expanded by Deck Nine, having a presence throughout and being compared to Laura Palmer". Rachel and Chloe's relationship also look to be described in detail, perhaps something can be found there.

Still certainly a case for weak pop culture notability. Seems to me like re-writting most of the article would be necessary to comprehend this. I was trying to make a point with the other character article that I question the use of this style, but perhaps bits from the newly added sources will make it more useful. Suppose I changed my recommendation to draft or week keep. IgelRM (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The character seems to have received quite a bit of controversy. As Daranios mentioned, there's plenty of non-trivial coverage in there to expand it beyond a stub. MoonJet (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with the "controversy" is that many of the sources don't even specifically talk about Rachel Amber as a character or whether they are recognized outside of the fandom or player base, but rather how LGBT themes in the LiS franchise are handled by its developers overall which is what said players are really reacting to. In other words, Rachel Amber the character isn't the source or subject of controversy, but the creative direction adopted by the developers. A careful read of the sources indicated to me that most of the "discussions" that were about Rachel were passing mentions or brief hot take criticisms that don't take up a single page. You are conflating the aggregated discussions about LGBT themes in Life is Strange, to an overarching in-depth discussion that is supposedly about Rachel. For example, what relevance does a source that talks about the allegedly "ungraceful" depiction of LGBT themes in Life is Strange 2 have to do with Rachel Amber when she does not even appear in the story itself? More specifically, how does it contribute towards making a case for notability of a mainspace article about her? Instead of accepting the advice and feedback from others about how the content they introduced should be contextualized and handled, in my opinion the article creator appears to be doubling down on the indiscriminate refbombing in an attempt to create an illusion that the subject topic is somehow notable in its own right. Haleth (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/draft - It's really hard to tell the actual potential here due to the refbombing. Some seem to be just brief mentions, while some do seem to be talking about it. I think this should be drafted so someone can take the time to actually go through to make sure every source is actually relevant to the topic. Even if it turns out not to be enough, I imagine the content will probably be useful elsewhere. TTN (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gameinformer, PCGamer, Engadget, and PopMatters extensively elaborate upon Rachel Amber. As for citing a majority of details of her character arc in the story predominately upon articles/journal entries — rather than citing the video game level it occurred in — I realize that many editors see the former as generally a better method of citation when the option is available. (Due to an often lack of easily finding the specific mention or instance within the game, a possible subjective interpretation required of scenes, et al.) There's a lot to work with that exists in existent, reliable sourcing. I realize that the article presently has flaws within it — to some extent, all articles probably do — but this doesn't necessitate deletion. KlayCax (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After some digging, I have concluded that the GNG has been cleared and probably far surpassed. I haven't checked all the refs, yet it was enough to find overwhelming evidence of SIGCOV, in my opinion. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] However, I would like to remind @KlayCax that interviews are not secondary sources, and thus do not count towards notability. Toadspike (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Even if we clean up some of the WP:PLOT summaries, the GNG has been met and this is a suitable article. Archrogue (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delaney Gibson. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SIGNY[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. No hits, and the sources are useless. The first brings a warning that the website is dangerous, and the third is dead. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know, before berating old sources you could have simply quickly checked the Internet Archives to find the original websites. I did and instantly found links to the two in question. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delaney Gibson. The last commenter is correct on how dead/blocked sources can be tracked down in the archives, but those in question are still unreliable and momentary mentions of the band. Gibson has some notability as a solo artist, and everything I can find on Signy (off-topic: I can't stand it when bands YELL their names) describe that act as one of Gibson's projects and even those are rare. Gibson's article mentions the existence of Signy and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I agree with Doomsayer520, and I would merge some of the content. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeping Up Appearances#Cast. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Keeping Up Appearances characters[edit]

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

Unsourced fictographies and fancruft. Notability not met. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Lists, and England. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excessively detailed, but the main characters are culturally important in this little corner of the world. Doug butler (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then it shouldn't be a problem finding plenty of sources to demonstrate their real-world impact and notability as per WP:WAF. Otherwise, this becomes a fan tribute site, which WP is not. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed on both counts. Rillington (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Keeping_Up_Appearances#Cast. Saying WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a very convincing argument. This is a poorly referenced fancrufty plot summary. A description of the main characters would be good in the linked-to section of the main article, and a short summary of this fancrufty list could be merged there. Keeping this as a stand-alone article, however, would go against WP:GNG/WP:NLIST/WP:FANCRUFT/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article. The core characters there should have a couple sentences each, but I'm not really sure if any of the content is really worth merging. Might be best to just leave it blank and let someone fill it in later. There is nothing showing this topic meets GNG or LISTN. It doesn't show that these are necessary, contextually relevant plot details that would not be able to fit in the main article. It's just bloat for the sake of bloat. TTN (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per Piotrus. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST due to the absence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Jontesta (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, divided between Keeps and Redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keeping Up Appearances#Cast - Excessive, overly detailed, in-universe plot summaries without a single reliable source. While the main article could probably use a few sentences of description added to the list of central characters already included there, the complete lack of sources or citations in this list means I can not advocate a Merge. But, a Redirect will preserve the history of this list if someone thinks it may be useful for any kind of expansion in the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because with most Britcoms, we've usually got the three pages (the show itself, the characters, and the episode list). Why should all of this be compressed into a single page? And also, because of the cultural importance. 87.254.73.92 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to add that isn't WP:PPOV? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. This is not of universal importance by any means even in England. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the iconic shows of its era. It had an extensive cast that should be described in a list like this. It just needs trimming and citation, but the show certainly calls for a separate character list. Thriley (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's covered here that isn't covered on the main article? I loved this show too, but that doesn't mean it "deserves" an extra article just because WP:ITSIMPORTANT. That's what this site [7] is for. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Cast section of the main Keeping Up Appearances article, but crop the list down to the main and recurring characters already listed there and add character descriptions.--TommyBoy (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. I would agree to merging but has anyone noticed the very large amount of unsourced material? I added an original research tag as it would not be possible to check the article with content severely lacking reliable independent sources and inline citations. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ridiculous that this has been nominated, find sources don’t erase history.RobynRhi (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hyacinth Bucket is certainly notable enough for her own page.[8][9][10][11][12] St Anselm (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done St Anselm (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not a single reliable independent source and I'm just not seeing how this meets Wikipedia's policies. Someone is making a decent effort to salvage the main character Hyacinth Bucket and this can be redirected there. Jontesta (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dad’s Army#Characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dad's Army characters[edit]

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

Basically a fanpage. Largely in-universe fictography and plotcruft with mostly primary sources. See WP:DERIVATIVE. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and England. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the middle layer between the show article, and the individual characters, multiples of which have enough references to appear notable at first blush. No BEFORE articulated. No ATD articulated, and it's pretty much impossible to AGF that an editor in good standing would be unable to identify a merge target for a "list of X characters" article. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned on similar AfD's, if I redirect this, it wouldn't be 10 minutes before it got reverted and I got a nasty note on my talk page for "not seeking consensus." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that is wrong because...? It's a wrong thing to do, whether through BOLD action or trying to misuse the AfD processes. Your actions are wrong for the encyclopedia, and sufficiently outside the bounds of policy and common sense that they should be treated as user conduct violations. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First you get mad at me for not redirecting or merging as per ATD, but then you tell me if I do that, it's a user conduct violation. Nice lose/lose situation you've set me up for there. So tell me, what would be the appropriate course of action here? Just let the cruft build up because it's WP:HARMLESS? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse me calling you out for your user conduct and misunderstanding of Wikipedia for being "mad" or having any other particular emotion. The proper response is to not nominate articles for deletion that do or could meet guidelines. If you don't understand how that applies to this article, that is a WP:CIR failure on your behalf. If you are unwilling to make such improvements yourself, then I suggest you simply tag the article and move on to one where you are willing to do the work of improving the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good, informative article and is an excellent part of the Dad's Army series of articles. Rillington (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL for a fan wiki. We have higher standards. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These characters have their own individual Wikipedia page. So a list article listing them all with basic information about them is a valid navigational and information list. Dream Focus 13:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dad's_Army#Characters, which alraedy contains most of the content and is likewise a fancrufty, unreferenced plot summary. This fails WP:NLIST, WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT (with associated essays, WP:FANCRUFT, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Plot-only lists can only be seen as valid if they provide necessary context for a general understanding of the topic and the main article is simply too large to properly house it. Neither seems to be the case here. This article is full of what appears to be superfluous plot details not relevant to the general reader, and the main article already has what appears to be a good overview of characters with and without articles. Without anything to allow the list to pass GNG or LISTN, there is no sufficient reason for this to exist. TTN (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect What few sources are used here can potentially be applied to the main article, but the vast majority is indiscriminate fancruft, as are the individual character articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dad's Army#Characters - The main article on the series already has a sufficient character list covering all of the main and major reoccurring characters, including succinct descriptions, actor information, and blue links to the appropriate main article for the characters notable enough to have one. This current list is mostly made up entirely of overly detailed plot information, much of which is either completely unsourced or sourced only to primary sources, and extremely minor characters that should not be covered. Rorshacma (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. Not enough sources for a stand-alone article and fails policies including WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:PLOT, and WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. This comes up every time, but apparently it needs to be repeated every time: WP:FANCRUFT is not, by itself, reason for deletion. I am happy to have the discussion on cleaning out all of Lists of fictional characters by work. AfD is not the place for it. De Guerre (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where would be the place for it? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably RfC, as this would be a proposed policy. De Guerre (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is not of universal importance by any means even in England. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Universal importance" has never been a requirement for notability, even in England. De Guerre (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present). There is consensus here that the subject is covered in multiple, independent reliable sources. The issue of contention is whether the event will be of lasting interest (per WP:LASTING etc.) or whether the existing coverage is merely part of the rolling news cycle. There are no compelling arguments in the discussion to suggest this is any more than a standalone one-off event, or has any more significance than the other article-less entries at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present).

AfD is not a referendum but for those interested there are 5 keep !votes to 8 delete/merge !votes (not including the nomination itself) so either way the outcome is the same. Waggers TALK 13:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Pakistan Army helicopter incident[edit]

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

This is an article that was sent to draft during NPP and it was resubmitted via AFC and immediately accepted. This should be deleted for several reasons, WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS - we do not know if it will have WP:GEOSCOPE or will be WP:LASTING. Bruxton (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Pakistan. Bruxton (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bruxton (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems like a notable, newsworthy event that is already attracting international attention. It has been reviewed as per the AfC process. Local and international news that suggests WP:GNG compliance to me:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1702847
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/pakistan-says-army-general-5-others-die-in-helicopter-crash-1.6010673
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/pakistan-army-chopper-with-senior-military-officials-onbaord-goes-missing-balochistan-1982604-2022-08-01
https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-army-helicopter-missing-with-general-on-board/a-62678255 CT55555 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (events) has the additional requirement of WP:LASTING RS interest or effects beyond the breaking news cycle. Military aviation accidents don't generally get this. Hence the nominator's WP:TOOSOON rationale at best. Again, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of WP:EVENT and it has informed my !vote. The lasting of coverage is impossible to know at this time. If you wanted me to absolutely focus on that part of the criteria, I would say it's too soon to delete. But I prefer to !vote based on all of the criteria, which includes WP:GEOSCOPE is, which is why I shared German, Indian and Canadian news. I don't understand why you said "again" because usually that implies that you needed to repeat something because someone wasn't listening, but this seems like your first comment here. If time passes and there is not lasting coverage, then I'd support deletion then. Until then, I see it like this:
1. Notability Y
2. International attention Y
3. Lasting coverage ? CT55555 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: No way to determine lasting when it happened yesterday. Exactly why I sent it to draft. The editor who moved it from draft should have waited. I checked their contributions and article creation and I was concerned. This is simply news, not encyclopedic content and there is WP:NORUSH. Bruxton (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a major notable event, it was included in wikipedia's Portal:Current events. 103.141.159.229 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH, military helicopters crash all the time, nothing notable about this one. LG Sarfaraz Ali doesn't have his own page. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have said that the coverage and the death of a lieutenant-general make it notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, clear example of WP:TOOSOON. The death of a general officer does not automatically confer notability, because (as has already been pointed out) Lt Gen Ali is apparently not wikinotable himself. Even if he were, it may be sufficient to discuss the crash into the page about his life, as has been done with other notable military leaders killed in aircraft crashes or shootdowns. Carguychris (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sentence or two to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present), as right now this doesn't merit a standalone article. Military air crashes are relatively common and there's nothing right now that suggests this one is exceptional. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is notable. If it was only about soldiers, it would be fine, but in this accident, 5 out of 6 were higher rank officers of Pakistan Army, which makes it notable.Vicozico13 (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Trainsandotherthings: death toll not that high, can be adequately covered in the list. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Factors such as a death toll, the ranking of the deceased are really not indicators of event notability. I would encourage people to be informed by WP:EVENT rather than death tool or military rank of victims. If 1,000 generals died and no newspaper, book or academic paper reported it = probably not notable. If a sergeant hurt their knee and it was front page news for months = it is probably notable. Please let the relevant guidance guide us. CT55555 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I believe we've consensus of topic being notable (GNG) and having international coverage, and have no agreement on whether it's going to have long lasting effect or not. To give an idea, I'll say Pakistan is pseudo-Democracy, where army holds much power and influence directly or indirectly. So a military general dying here, is quite a big deal here. Additionally it happened in no common circumstances, 2 months before appointment of new Chief of Army Staff (Pakistan) and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (given history of appointments, he was also a potential candidate). It'll mustly cause different conspiracy theories to pop up and make their into history books, and news media, as it's happening right now [13], [14]. For me it's long lasting effect is certain, at least in Pakistan. Thanks Ahated (talk!) 10:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To 2022 Pakistan floods. The floods article has a section with a main template to this article, but no content. Both articles are stubs, so why not combine and try to improve them into 1 article. I do believe this could be keep, but wold fully prefer a merge to help improve the article past stub. Elijahandskip (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present) and 2022 Pakistan floods. Per WP:NOTNEWS. ––FormalDude talk 09:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per TAOT. Looks to me to be a "routine" event, with no lasting coverage. SWinxy (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the following, if not lasting coverage? What would lasting coverage look like if this is not this?
1. Geo TV coverage two days ago: https://www.geo.tv/latest/434068-govt-to-arrest-all-people-invovled-in-social-media-campaign-against-balochistan-copter-crash
2. UrduPoint coverage from yesterday https://www.urdupoint.com/en/miscellaneous/tributes-paid-at-pak-embassy-to-army-officers-1548672.html
3. Washington Post article mentioning it yesterday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/18/pakistan-ary-news-khan-sharif/ CT55555 (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article meets WP:N, however it is a work in progress as Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Given the widespread publicity and given that one of the victims of the crash has their own Wikipedia profile - Sarfraz Ali (Pakistan Army officer), the article would be suited staying as it. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ElderZamzam, I would like to point out Sarfraz Ali (Pakistan Army officer) was created the day after this article (crash). The crash gave him notability for an article, so saying a victim has an article gives extra notability to the crash article does not really work in this situation. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteor merge per FormalDude and others. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Mohamed Mohamoud[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't able to find anything about this person that would support keeping them. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Gold[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a company, referenced almost entirely to primary sources with little evidence of media coverage shown to get it over WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Three of the five footnotes here are the company's own website about itself, one more is an entry in a business directory that isn't a notability builder, and I've also already stripped a citation to the company's own LinkedIn page -- which means there's only one acceptable footnote here, an article in the Indiana Economic Digest, but that isn't enough all by itself.
The even bigger problem here is that this has been flagged for relying too much on primary sources since 2009, with the Indiana Economic Digest source being the only new source that's ever been added to the article in the entire 13 years since. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived American media coverage than I've got can find enough legitimate sourcing to get this over the bar -- but after 13 years it can't just keep sitting around in this badly-sourced state anymore, and it's time to pull the "fix it or lose it" trigger. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Indiana. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a number of news-like sites that turn up when you Google the company, but they all turn out to be PR-based or simply unreliable. There is no *significant* coverage in independent, reliable sources that I can see - the company does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly a company going about its business and producing branded products, but notability is less clear. There is this article about the other firm from whom the Red Gold brand name was purchased in 1970, this 2010 article about the firm's sourcing from local farms, and more recently some coverage such as this contains some details about how their business was coping during COVID, but I think more detailed coverage would be needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Pulou[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Peninsa[edit]

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

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to establish notability. Avilich (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Padio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting the sockpuppets, there is consensus to delete. ✗plicit 13:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Galik (Tennis Professional)[edit]

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

Tennis player whose best ranking as a pro was 505th (209th in doubles). She had a good college career in a small school (Flagler College) but college tennis only gets limited coverage and as a result, there's just not enough significant coverage in third-party sources to warrant an article. Pichpich (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:NCOLLATH. Also couldn't find any coverage of her that's independent of the college so she fails WP:GNG too. Iffy★Chat -- 09:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP I feel the case was made and in-fact DOES meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:NCOLLATH. I do a search and find many references to her accomplishments on the court! FrancoisSic (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) Iffy★Chat -- 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Iffy. Doesn't meet WP:GNG nor does she meet WP:NTENNIS. I am struggling to see how she meets either WP:NTENNIS or WP:NCOLLATH if User:FrancoisSic would like to explain their rationale. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::If you follow the citations she was #1 on her team and the first undefeated in the school's history, additionally she had a stellar record throughout her career, AND made it to the pros. Seems to me that qualifies.FrancoisSic (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) Iffy★Chat -- 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC) *KEEP Seems accomplished and worthy but lacks some pro history - nonetheless she is more accomplished than many.Alyona Kira (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) Iffy★Chat -- 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP I believe the article should stand. Reading articles about her seems to support the fact that Galik was indeed formidable. Yes it would be nice to see more citations supporting the pro career, but the fact remains she was professional.ArizonaAltier (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) Iffy★Chat -- 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Sam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Banaras Hindu University. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 08:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Scientific Research of the Banaras Hindu University[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases. A Google search gives 62 hits, most of them issues of this journal in Google Books, but no in-depth independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator who posted justification on article's talk page. The arguments given rest on a misinterpretation of NJournals, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also see my comment at the Talk page. User4edits (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. 21:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC) User4edits (talk) User4edits (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User4edits: Are you able to point to any relevant notability guideline to indicate that this journal meets it? WP:JOURNALCRIT doesn't enjoy the status of being a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), but WP:DEL-REASON#8 gives policy-based reasons to delete articles that do not meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. In other words, can you point to the SNG(s) that this article's subject satisfies and/or can you provide evidence that this passes the WP:GNG? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Institute of Science, Banaras Hindu University, which publishes the journal, but currently contains no information about it (or any other journal). Cielquiparle (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That article is itself also problematic, as it has no in-depth independent sources (I am ignoring several in-passing mentions added today by User4edits). The whole set of articles smells like a walled garden to me, with articles for all institutes/faculties, something we usually don't even do for much more notable universities than this one. --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty You can propose to merge them all to Banaras Hindu University, however, not the place to discuss that. User4edits (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Randykitty and Cielquiparle: I have expanded the article with some research, you may please want to see. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I appreciate your efforts, I don't see anything that would make me change my mind. Some in-passing mentions or listings are not sufficient to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banaras_Hindu_University#Institute_of_Science_(ISc-BHU) in light of the tenuous status of the previous merge target I suggested. (So far, the most in-depth coverage I have found on the Institute of Science, Banaras Hindu University is an article on the 100-year history of the Department of Geology within the Institute of Science, which appeared in the 2020 issue of Current Science, but it turns out the author is affiliated with the department (so isn't independent), plus it is focused only on that one department.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Banaras_Hindu_University not notable to have a standalone article. KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Samson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 puma sightings in Santiago[edit]

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

Renominated as soft deletion was contested. Not a relevant event on its own. Also, WP:NOTNEWS (no. 2). Event did not have lasting effects. Could be merged, partly, into the covid pandemic article in Chile. Bedivere (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No lasting significance. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS beacause; 1) it is not original reporting, 2) the event was indeed rare and notable enough to be covered by numerous sources, 3) "Who is who" does not aply 4) It was never gossip. The nomination seems to me a misuse of the shortcut WP:NOTNEWS. There is plenty of article about events without much obvious lasting significance such as the 1949 Tierra del Fuego earthquakes or the 2022 Tierra del Fuego wildfire, or let's say any random animal or plant species. The fact that such a rare thing occurred makes it notable, and reliable media in Chile and Spain rightfully recognised this. Sietecolores (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I don't believe it warrants its own article, there is no reason you cannot add this content to an appropriate article. If no other target exists, South American cougar could use more information about the range of the animal, which could include appropriate discussions re its presence in Santiago in 2020. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of TRIVIA and Not the NEWS; as these events are an everyday, non-notable occurrence (animals are in towns all the time: bears in Duluth; bobcats in Topeka, and pumas in Santiago, etc.). 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenQuest (talk • contribs)

GenQuest, please read the article again. These are not events that occur every day. That is why reputable sources like Reuters (x2), La Tercera, La Vanguardia, and Radio Cooperativa decided to cover the topic, and why there is an article on the subject on Current Biology. Sietecolores (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Current Biology paper only mentions the Santiago sightings but in fact refers to sightings in California. The other sources are just routine coverage. Bedivere (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

Bedivere, you got it wrong. There is no "routine coverage" of pumas walking into Santiago. Where did you get that idea from? The different battles of the war in Ukraine are more likely more of a "routine coverage". Sietecolores (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of the Russian invasion of Ukraine have enduring notability, for sure. Puma sightings in Santiago, although uncommon, do not merit a standalone article. Maybe, if enough sources are found (that Current Biology paper could be a great point of start) the article scope could be broadened to wild animal sightings in different parts in the world as a result of the pandemic. I would not be opposed to such an outcome. Bedivere (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per user above. More akin to trivia or news and we don't need every big cat sighting getting its own article. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just trivia. Could be mentioned in a larger article about effects of the the corona lockdown on the wildlife around the world, but on its own it's just not relevant enough. Tercer (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already Soft Deleted so not eligible again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am particularly fond of the notion that the article has no lasting effects. SWinxy (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I do not believe a third relist is likely to get closer to a consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdy El-Said[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:NOLY. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix is 104th in the world heavyweight rankings, which is not even close to the top 10 requirement. He also failed to win a medal in his appearance at the 2016 Summer Olympics, having been eliminated in round 16. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Olympics, Wrestling, and Egypt. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He doesn't meet either SNG, but it looks like there's enough coverage of him to pass GNG. In English, there's [15] [16] and [17]. I don't speak Arabic, but using Google Translate I was able to find some additional Arabic sources: [18] [19] [20]. I'd like to get an Arabic speaker's opinion on whether there are additional Arabic sources or the quality of the sources I linked, but it does look like significant coverage exists. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NMMA, WP:NSPORT, and WP:MANOTE. He lost his first match at the Olympics and doesn't appear to have ever competed at an adult world championship event. The articles I found, including those in the article and the ones mentioned by TheCatalyst31, were about his loss at the Rio Olympics, his signing of a UFC contract, and at least three heralding the fact he was the first Egyptian to win a UFC fight. I don't think that coverage is significant enough to meet WP:GNG. At best I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'd say the articles linked by TheCatalyst31 just get him over the GNG bar. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kedie Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The problems with the sourcing have not been addressed conclusively in the discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to expand my reasoning, firstly we start with a nomination that tells us this is an unsourced list with concerns about OR and invalid claims. Then I look at the votes and compare them to policy. We get keep votes acknowledging the lack of sources and problems with content but it looks ok. Then we see a strong argument threading through the discussion that large sections have been made up based on criteria that did not exist at the time, That is pretty fatal to any article and has not been countered in the keep arguments. Finally there is a suggestion to use the PT article to find sources but the impression I got was that these sources were already rejected when an earlier discussion was a delete. Overall then, there are serious issues with OR that have not been countered. No serious argument about how this should be sourced and that was pretty much that. I think in retrospect I’m think this is more of a TNT job then an outright rejection of the concept of the page but if it is to be recreated then we need a proper scholarly source for each entry to avoid the OR coming back in. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of heirs to the Portuguese throne[edit]

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

No citations. Earlier entries, such as Sophia and Ingeborg of Denmark are dubious at best and probably fanciful in the sense that they were never considered heirs. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A (possible) few of errors in a long list is a reason to edit not to delete. Yes it lacks sources, but still it does not look like being made up, but only the result of sloppy editing. (I am Portuguese) - Nabla (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and extensively made-up. DrKay (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There hasn't been a Portuguese throne, since 1910. Best to discourage such lists. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Should we delete most articles on History? - Nabla (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't history. It's mostly fiction. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A list of heirs and pretenders to a throne that was abolished over a century ago is not noteworthy. Drdpw (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We've quite a few of these defunct throne lists. See - Austrian, French, Greek, Italian, Prussian, Saxe Coburg-Gotha thrones. Scottish & English thrones, are trickier. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's obviously going to be significant coverage of the heirs to the throne of any country. In this case, see 1, 2. We can distinguish between the real heirs and "pretender heirs" in the lead, and emphasise that the Portuguese throne is now defunct, to address the POV concerns raised above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find any coverage of the Danish heirs in those sources, which are about the monarchy of Portugal not this topic. It's not just the pretenders that are a problem. The medieval sections are largely made-up by applying succession law that did not exist at the time. DrKay (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - most of the article is about heirs apparent to the throne, not pretenders. I am far from sure that the inclusion of heirs apparent to pretenders is useful. Perhasp prune. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the pretenders can be removed immediately, there's no Portuguese throne now but there was one in the past, medieval entries can be contested without purging the article wholesale. --Killuminator (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the issues raised by the nominator can be dealt with using translated content and sources from the portuguese wikipedia[21][22] SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be contrary to WP:G4, since it would recreate an article that has already been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Portuguese throne, . DrKay (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not proposed to recreate an identical copy of a deleted article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Laeli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Heroux[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a poet, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The notability claim on offer here is that he's poet laureate of a midsized city, which is not a role that guarantees automatic inclusion in Wikipedia without WP:GNG-worthy coverage -- but the sourcing is not getting him over GNG, as it consists of three primary sources that are not support for notability at all and one article from a community hyperlocal news website, which isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made some additions to the article, including references to a couple of reviews (in Books in Canada and Arc Poetry Magazine, two well-respected Canadian literary publications) and shortlistings for awards, and a quote from a profile in the Kingston Whig-Standard, which is one of Canada's larger newspapers. I note for what it's worth that almost all poets laureate listed in the Poet Laureate article who don't have articles are redlinked (such that if the Heroux article were to be deleted he would revert to being redlinked there); if being a poet laureate is insufficient for notability then those redlinks ought to be removed. In my view being selected for Best Canadian Poetry in English in three different years is probably sufficient to demonstrate notability on its own, as that series arguably pretty much defines who is a notable Canadian poet.Cincinnatus c (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Kingston Whig-Standard is "one of Canada's larger newspapers" does not override the fact that since Jason Heroux is poet laureate of Kingston, coverage in the KWS merely represents local interest coverage in a local interest context, not evidence of wider recognition — the fact that one article exists in his own city's main daily newspaper still isn't a GNG pass if nearly all of the other sourcing in the article is still of the primary variety, and being selected for Best Canadian Poetry anthologies (no matter how many times) doesn't constitute an article-clinching notability claim until media write independent third-party analytical content treating "poet selected for anthology" as a news story. And incidentally, the redlinks you're talking about in poet laureate were all added to it just one week ago by an editor who was simply copy-pasting the same information he was already adding to brand new and badly-sourced "Municipal poets laureate in [Canadian province]" lists at the same time, and thus do not constitute evidence that Wikipedia routinely accepts all municipal poets laureate as "inherently" notable. Bearcat (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dozen other references in the article. Instead of nominating for deletion, why not add another reference - like this one a couple of decades ago in the Toronto Star? Nfitz (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A dozen other references in the article, most of which are primary sources that are not support for notability. For instance, a poet laureate of a city is not "inherently" notable just because he has a "staff" profile on the self-published website of the city, a writer is not "inherently" notable just because his books have profiles on the self-published website of their own publishing company or directory entries in WorldCat or Google Books, and on and so forth.

And while the ReLit Awards aren't nothing, they aren't highly meganotable enough that the mere presence of the person's name in a ReLit nominees list would confer an instant inclusion freebie on a writer who wasn't otherwise being sourced properly. Far more past ReLit nominees don't have articles yet than do, and the ones who do generally either (a) won it, or (b) have other notability claims stronger than just a ReLit nomination alone. Bearcat (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a dozen other references, and only most of them aren't GNG, how is this an issue? Nfitz (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well referenced. Nfitz (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not well-referenced at all; it's referenced principally to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles and directory entries. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article does not need to be principally referenced to GNG sources. It needs simply 2 or 3; the others can be primary. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Whig and the Toronto Star stories mentioned above are reliable, the Quill and Quire sources are also very good sources. Also a review in Event Magazine, a poetry magazine with a long history in Canada [23] and another in the Malahat Reviews [24]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like notable poet to me. After a quick search i found this, this and this. Nupamjo (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established by "staff" profiles on the self-published website of the person's own employer, or by his own books having directory entries on Google Books, or by pieces of his own writing about other things. Notability can only be established by reliable source coverage in media, in which he is the subject of coverage and analysis being written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michaella Kurabi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aminath Shamila[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. All sources are trivial mentions of the subject at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Maldives. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Gabong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These bulk nominations are getting ridiculous. Sigcov in https://www.looppng.com/sport/gabong-lead-women%E2%80%99s-soccer-team-113956 https://www.looppng.com/sport/gabong-we-can-go-step-higher-115150 https://www.looppng.com/sport/co-captains-start-madang-tour-115519 https://postcourier.com.pg/top-of-the-ladder-clash-in-womens-nsl-southern-conference/ https://www.thenational.com.pg/brothers-loss-was-a-gain-for-gabong/ pburka (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first, second and fifth sources primarily rely on quotes from Gabong and is not independent of the subject. The third and four articles are at best trivial mentions of the subject. What's ridiculous is the amount of soccer biographies on Wikipedia that do not pass either criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage shown through sources above. GNG does not say anything about excluding interview-based sources, nor does any other WP policy that I am aware of. While I agree with nominator on the fact that there are plenty of soccer bios that do not meet GNG, in this case, Loop PNG and The Post Courier are independent of the subject because they are not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". JTtheOG (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is an active footballer with national squad caps. There is coverage as pointed out above. --Mvqr (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough here to justify keeping this one. Newspapers reliance on interviews with the subject raises issues of verifiability, but not notability. CT55555 (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Besides the sources found above, I found 6 among many many more sources from Post Courier, YouTube etc which show she is notable in Papua New Guinea. She also captained Papua New Guinea to their only major trophy, the 2022 OFC Women's Nations Cup. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability is established by in-depth articles including "Gabong to lead U20s midfield" (The National newspaper in PNG) and "Gabong for Glory" on EMTV Online. Both aren't interview-driven articles (!), and of the coverage containing quotes from Gabong herself, at least the more recent 2021 article in The National includes a few (short) paragraphs of factual reporting by the newspaper and establishes sustained interest in Gabong herself over time. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable - has over 20 caps for her national team which she captains, multiple independent sources quoted above. Honestly, the AFDs for footballers has been ridiculous since the change of the SNG. Not sure what people feel they gain by deleting so much, when they could use their time to improve articles. --SuperJew (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Oregon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon[edit]

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

Not very notable. Few outside sources Wiseoleman17 (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to main University of Oregon page Andre🚐 06:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to parent article - University of Oregon. Absolutely not needed for a standalone article and does not meet GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fair, can I ask why? Also, the sources are pretty good.--24.85.234.209 (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The sources are not "pretty good". They are about other topics and individual subjects, not about the Board of Trustees. We don't have a single article solely on the Board. --Kbabej (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair comment. Another reason to delete. I copied and pasted the bulk of the article to the UO history section. Likely in the future a separate UO history article could be created. 24.85.234.209 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Administrator note: IP above is the nominator, editing logged-out. They have agreed not to do this again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to parent article (University of Oregon). This article is not needed for a standalone article and does not meet GNG.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Kornmann[edit]

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep several good sources found by googling "Guillaume Kornmann", in the first two search result pages: [25], [26], and a general list of related sources here [27]. At this point I really doubt a proper WP:BEFORE has been made, seeing how low-effort this and the previous Jacques Mitterrand nomination look like. BilletsMauves^€500 19:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are a number of sources on the French version of the article[28] and then there are Google books sources[29][30].--Jahaza (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of sourcing, still not sure he warrants an article, but it's what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La-La Land Records[edit]

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

No significant coverage; fails WP:NCORP. Look likes advertising. The Banner talk 18:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Mentions on TrekMovie.com [31], which has been generally reliable for Star Trek news, and a piece in Collider [32], plus many other sources in the GNews feed. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a fan site. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reliable coverage in Hollywood Reporter here [33] and Variety [34], Playbill here: [35] all smallish mentions but they detail the types of music the label publishes. Another brief mention but is an "important publisher" in a book here: [36] and the company has won awards from the IFMCA [37]. Mention in Variety again, [38] Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Product presentations and passing mentions are not the reliable, in-depth, independent source we need. The Banner talk 19:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely non-notable, however i'd also think there may be a case to speedy per WP:CSD#G4 as this article is surely no better than the one that was deleted. I'd hazard a guess it may be worse. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The subject in this article could very well gain enough coverage to establish notability down the road. And it's at least a company doing something so if there is more coverage about the company and not just mentions that they made some limited edition records then it should stay. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseana Vaz[edit]

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

There are lots of mentions in local newspapers, but nothing significant. This was the best I could find. The FIBA u18 tournament doesn't appear to have been covered by any notable sources either, and there's nothing in WP:NSPORT that would cover her either Alyo (chat·edits) 14:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Colorado. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Mitchell (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Subject does not appear to have a profile in Fight Matrix's database, nor has he appeared in any of Sherdog's top 10 rankings. As for GNG, I couldn't find much of any coverage outside databases for the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 14:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and Tennessee. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 14:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He was involved in MMA fights, but he was not a notable fighter. Fails NMMA, which is the relevant guideline. Did a lot more losing than winning and was never ranked in the top 10 of his weight class. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An MMA record of 2 wins and 7 losses clearly indicates he's not a notable MMA fighter. The lack of significant independent coverage indicates he fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AHZ Associates[edit]

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

completely and utterly non notable vanity spam by an SPA. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an advert, and is currently supported by citations to rehashed corporate announcements. I've looked for better sourcing, but didn't find anything that would come closing to meeting the requirements at WP:NCORP. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that the sourcing is literally almost entirely fake - it's blatant blackhat SEO and should be apparent to anyone with common sense. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious covert advertising - the sources are far from being reliable and independent as Girth Summit said above. I note that a G11 has been declined; I'd probably have deleted as G11, but now that it's been declined and an AfD is underway I shall let it play out. firefly ( t · c ) 14:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poor sourcing which is likely pay-to-publish and a promotional tone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all above. Oaktree b (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have a lot of authentic and famous sources of news and websites. So I think it's not fake page. Istiaqseo (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're paid to write this and you've still failed to disclose as much, of course you wouldn't think it's a "fake page". PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability, complete spam. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Also misleading - stating that the company "represents" UK institutions implies that this company provides an official function on behalf of these institutions which is not true. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Firefly. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 08:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brijesh Singh IPS[edit]

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

Highly promotional article (more like a CV) about a police officer, supported by fairly routine announcements about his various appointments. It's so badly written I'd also be inclined to invoke WP:TNT. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment might pass as AUTHOR if reviews of his books can be found, I can't find much for him. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:TNT if not anything, I think the subject might be able to pass WP:BASIC, barely that is, once we solely rely on independent coverage but the article needs to completely redone, including the title. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Imperfect Boy (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Parker[edit]

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

I'm not sure who contested this and where but I have to agree with the prod from 12 years ago - I see no evidence she's a notable skater or athlete and don't see any significant changes from the original prod which read: She only competed at the national elite level once, and finished last in a field of 19 competitors. The national collegiate championship is not "the highest level" of the sport and is not evidence of notability.

And at the very least, if she's done anything in the last 12 years, I don't see any coverage of it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSKATE. Chagropango (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Chagropango. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, notability was tenuous then, still weak now, all these years later. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed WP:NSKATE 12.5 years ago (when the article was WP:PRODed) and still fails now. Also, no good reliable sources could be found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adebimpe omo oba[edit]

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

The references are about the producer , not the film. No other apparent evidence for `notability DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Bay Green Committee[edit]

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

Non-notable local committee. No significant coverage located on a search. Single local source insufficient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 05:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small town org without wider significance. Could not find any news sources except the local piece. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muzi Koti Park[edit]

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

The word park (پارک) means park in Persian, as seen in actual park names such as پارک شهر, putting in doubt whether these pages created by Carlossuarez46 are actually villages.

All 6 Carlossuarez46 place names containing پارک or پارك in the unromanized Persian

Muzi Koti Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (موزي كتي پارك)
Parak-e Bashir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (پارک بشیر)
Parak-e Hutan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (پارک هوتان)
Parak-e Morad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (پارک مراد)
Parak-e Sheykhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (پارك شيخان)
Parkbarm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (پارك برم)

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete all - Neither being listed in the Iranian census as an abadi, nor GEOnet Names Server data, are evidence of legal recognition. FOARP (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these articles look more like hoaxes. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - No evidence that these are villages. –dlthewave ☎ 13:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With permission for early relisting by a non-sock Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Chakravorty[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Not enough reliable independent sources. Nothing greater than that of trivial mentions. Most of the details added about him especially personal details are unsourced, I don't know from where the author got such details. Onmyway22 talk 06:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Maharashtra. Onmyway22 talk 06:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very less coverage which is independent and significant. It might be the case of toosoon. QueerEcofeminist🌈 15:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that the nominator was blocked for sockpuppetry, but not in violation of WP:CSD#G5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prateek is a notable film director and producer. He can be seen on many notable news websites and he has directed many notable films. Passes WP:FILMMAKER. Social-Informers (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On first glance, it seems that although his films may be notable, he is not. He has a large number of mentions in Indian media, but almost all of the coverage is trivial, and limited to naming him as the maker of a specific film. Fails WP:GNG but there is a chance he could pass WP:FILMMAKER according to the clause "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," but I don't think so, because I think this generally refers to a series, but there is nothing to link together his body of work to make it collectively well-known. Chagropango (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does include some coverage by reliable sources. Subject seems just notable enough to keep. Admittedly, I'm inclined to reject any AfD proposed by a confirmed sockpuppet. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lothian Demain Nicholson[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability found, only passing mentions. Fram (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Fram (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete does not assert notability Andre🚐 05:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any significant coverage. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Go ahead and delete it. No reason to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.218.195 (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Lafazan[edit]

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

Local county legislator fails WP:NPOL. Remove the primary and unreliable sources and there is nothing significant besides minor, hyperlocal and run-of-the-mill coverage. czar 05:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. czar 05:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:AVOIDCOI, I am the original creator of this article. The article's subject received widespread attention in 2012 as the youngest elected official to every be elected to a school board in NY, which is why it was created in the first place. WP:NPOL's second bullet point includes "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage," which I cannot see how this subject does not fit this point. WP:GNG states essentially the same. and this subject has received plenty of coverage, both good and bad. The run-of-the-mill page referenced is an essay, not policy, and once again, I am unsure how this fits. The majority of sources on that article are non-primary, and are written by a range of sources. This can be improved per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, not deletion. BRES2773 (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I apologize to even bring this up, however this page's existence was not questioned for several years until now, the time of the subject's campaign for higher office. BRES2773 (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading the footnote on the part you quoted. Routine local coverage of routine local politician activities is not exceptional or even significant press coverage. Otherwise we'd have articles on any local legislator who is covered in their local paper. czar 12:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The county level of office does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL #2, and people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates for higher office either. In order to get an article for being a county legislator, it isn't enough to have some coverage in the local media, because every county legislator in every county can always show that — a county legislator's media coverage would have to nationalize, building a case that he could be seen as significantly more nationally notable than most other county legislators, before it could earn him inclusion in Wikipedia. And no, "youngest person to do a not otherwise notable thing" still isn't a notability freebie either. So no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins election to Congress, but he doesn't automatically get an article just for being a candidate in a primary and he doesn't automatically get an article just for serving at the county level of government. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satifies GNG, signifcant coverage independent of subject. There is NO policy about being significantly more nationally notable than most other county legislators; that's simple non-Wikipeia made up stuff. That Newsday is hyper-local is a disingenuous claim. Djflem (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There most very definitely is such a rule. Politicians at the county level of office are not all deemed "inherently" notable just for existing as local officeholders — but since politicians at the county level of office can always show some local coverage and thus claim that they had passed WP:GNG and were thus exempted from having to be measured against NPOL at all, our established consensus that politicians at the county level of office are not all "inherently" notable would be entirely meaningless, because no county-level politician in any county would ever fail to gain that exemption if that were how it worked.

So, since county-level politicians are not notable by default, that means that to actually attain notability a county-level politician does have to show a credible reason why they should be viewed as more significant than most other county-level politicians. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Most of the coverage appears local in nature, but there has been some significant coverage from major outlets: [39], [40], [41]. Admittedly, two out of three of these are from NYC, so they might be close enough to be considered routine local coverage. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NYT is fine, of course, but NY Post is a generally unreliable source and the Jerusalem Post article is one long quote—it's a primary source. If there were three articles like the NYT's there wouldn't be an issue, but there aren't. czar 18:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A proper Wikipedia:BEFORE would have revealed this one: Novick, Susan M. (September 27, 2019). "This Politician Lives in His Mom's Basement and He's Campaigning on It". The New York Times. Retrieved August 14, 2022.. Newsday coverage in article also significant. Djflem (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally discussed in the last comment. Also that Newsday, a regional daily, covers local candidates from that region is unremarkable, yes. czar 19:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More idependent significant (easily found): Svitak, Adora (2020), Speak Up!: Speeches by young people to empower and inspire, White Lion Publishing, ISBN 9781781319505

An author bio in an essay collection is neither independent nor significant coverage. czar 20:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of linked guidelines are specifically referring to? Djflem (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An author bio or an interview is not coverage that is independent of the subject, because it comes straight from him. The general notability guideline says that the coverage needs to be independent of the topic and in-depth. This is grasping at straws. czar 00:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is not the author of the book; so it's about him, not "straight from him". Djflem (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this discussion started, a new (independent, in-depth) non-local, non-run-of-the-mill article about Lafazan has been published in a reliable source: [42]. userdude 18:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC), edited 19:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage from the New York Times, the Jerusalem Post, and the Intercept (spanning three years) indicates that Lafazan isn't solely of local or fleeting interest, and his status as the youngest elected official in New York State may be another reason a page for him isn't WP:MILL. Hatman31 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage, notable. Andre🚐 04:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SWAT Elite Troops[edit]

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

Article about game with lack of information regarding about its notability Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Police Quest per WP:ATD. Mobygames says it got 2 reviews, but I cannot find any further instances of WP:SIGCOV so it appears better to summarize it on the series page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Waxworker has dredged up some lost media about the game, it now passes GNG with unquestionable notability and should remain a standalone article. I call upon User:Pyraminxsolver to withdraw the AfD as the lack of information has now been addressed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find four reviews of the game - IGN, Pocket Gamer, 1up.com, and issue 6, May 2008 issue of PlayStation Magazine. Passes GNG. Waxworker (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep or Keep. Thanks Waxworker for the rescue! After the 4 new refs, which I've added to article, I agree with Zxcvbnm that the article is definitely notable. There are 4 full-length, significant, independent, and reliable reviews (per WP:VGRS they are all listed in the RS section). Only 2+ refs is needed to pass WP:NPRODUCT, so it's easily met, and this AfD might be withdrawn if the nom agrees it's notable now. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolette Lim[edit]

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

non notable gymnast with no medals at national and international levels. WP:BEFORE done with no SIGCOV. Singapore's local newspaper archive does not yield any coverage. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Singapore. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If you limit it to .sg sources, she turns up, mostly in relation to a sexting scandal with a man she used to work for as a personal assistant. He wasn't being very nice to her. Probably GNG, but I didn't care to read much more about it, rather disturbing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Oaktree b, WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She won a metal at the ASEAN School Games. Came out as a sexual harassment victim which has significant and sustained coverage. I've expanded the article and added the sources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her ASEAN School Games medal does not pass WP:NGYMNAST, SIGCOV comes from as a victim which we should avoid per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between highlighting someone being a victim of a crime and someone speaking out because something happened to them. In this case Nicolette coming out for being the victim of harassment is more in line with the Me Too movement then just coverage of her being harrassed. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NGYMNAST doesn't seem to be met, and as for WP:GNG, sustained coverage isn't shown in the sources that were added, since they are two versions of the same text, published on the same day, right after it happened. Note that I have removed the Alchetron source (this one) added by Dr vulpes, since it's a Wikipedia mirror. --bonadea contributions talk 11:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. no significant/notable athletics achievements after school level wins. – robertsky (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not particularly notable currently, appears to fail wp:SIGCOV and wp:NGYMNAST as stated by the nominator, as the subject hasn't yet won notable medals. Nythar^T^.^C 08:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her athletic achievements do not seem to establish notability - no Olympic appearances as far as I see, and youth-level achievements do not cut it. No medals at senior competitions. There does seem to be sourcing re sexual harassment allegations - however, we do not even have a page for Eden Ang, so keeping a page because she accused him of harassment has a page seems incongruous. WP:AVOIDVICTIM also applies, as noted above.--‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shantae#Risky Boots. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Risky Boots[edit]

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

No sources, little content, and VERY poorly written. Attempts have been made to propose deletion twice, but the article creator has removed the notice each time without addressing any of the issues or leaving any reason for removal in the edit summary. Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shantae Andre🚐 03:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue any relevant information worth saving is already present on the Shantae article, so there's really nothing to merge. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The prose gets an honorable mention for being comically awful, but there is nothing here worth saving and merging to Shantae. Risky Boots may deserve an entry on Shantae, but it would be better to write it from scratch. Chagropango (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shantae#Risky Boots as a reasonable search term target. There are no sources that show that the character is independently notable from the series as a whole, and nothing from this article should be kept or merged. Rorshacma (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT #1 - absence of deletion rationale. See also WP:SURMOUNTABLE. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darksword[edit]

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

This article is written like something out of a fan wiki. Minimal sourcing, almost all in-universe. Given that these books hit the NYT bestseller list (albeit only in paperback), there's probably room for an article, but this one is in such bad shape I'm invoking WP:TNT. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No policy-based rationale articulated: WP:TNT is an essay, and invoking TNT as a primary/sole deletion rationale is an admission that regular editing could improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get "an admission that regular editing could improve" it from invoking WP:TNT? Doesn't TNT mean literally the opposite, i.e. this article isn't worth trying to save and needs to be rewritten from scratch? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username: You just described not deleting it. WP:SOFIXIT — Smuckola (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username: I think what Smuckola meant (and you might have misunderstood), is that you simply may not argue using solely WP:TNT in AfD. You may declare that the subject fails WP:GNG, or some other policy; but you can't solely argue based on the bad state of an article. If we'd e.g. remove all unsourced and in-universe stuff (which I am not suggesting here, it's just a possibility), we might be left with a perfectly fine stub article which should not be deleted. Conversely, we should not delete the bad original article. Does this make sense? I understand why deleting and then recreating migth sound tempting, but we'd lose all content that another editor could base their work on. And let's face it, you probably didn't vote delete because you are going to start a shiny new draft and get it back to mainspace afterwards, right? ;) --LordPeterII (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As Jclemens said, this is an invalid filing. This is not what deletion is for. — Smuckola (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs expansion of the reception section and probably trimming of the plot summary/characters section. WP:TNT was invoked as a deletion reason, but that essay only proposes deletion if there is nothing worthwhile beyond the title. In a "good" article, the introduction, overview, and what we have so far of reception, as well as a balanced amount of the plot summary would still appear. So deletion is not warranted based on WP:TNT. Daranios (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miriama Kunagale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lack of WP:SIGCOV from third-party reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She may pass WP:NRU if Fiji makes it to the semi-finals of the Rugby world cup, but for now she doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chagropango (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NRU, but more importantly there's no GNG pass here as far as I can see. Could easily be a case of TOOSOON, and I'm not seeing a suitable redirect here really. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appearing in a squad list is not significant coverage and never has been. I could not find even one example of Kunagale being addressed in detail Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hanif Dolor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Vitulin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He plays on Martinique's national team and has received quite a bit of coverage (see here for example) for that. He may fail WP:GNG but pass WP:NFOOTY Chagropango (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFOOTY seems to be deprecated, although I'm surprised we don't have specific criteria for such a popular sport. The mention you found, @Chagropango, is just a passing one, just like others that I found. This might mean that we have reliable, but not close to significant coverage. It might be that there are French sources with more detail, but if so, I couldn't find them. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So all sports notability criteria got neutured a while back, players need to pass at least WP:GNG to be eligible for a page and passing references don't count. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case I'd agree that delete is the appropriate course of action. Chagropango (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Meslien[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Edward[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danica Moadi[edit]

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

This article lacks the required sources for WP:GNG. IBG news and Nettv4u do not appear reliable, The Times of India is a questionable source per WP:RSPS, and BollySpice is a primary source. A WP:BEFORE only found social media and the like. I don't think the actress meets WP:NACTOR because she is only in small roles in the cited films. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CollectiveSolidarity, thanks for your efforts for Wikipedia. To be clear, The Times of India is a questionable source when it comes to Indian Government related topics. Danica Moadi has done big roles in the cited films and a renowned face in Indian television & film industry. I request you to please do not consider this article for deletion. Jishan.JAM (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there @Jishan.JAM. The Times of India, per WP:RSPS is considered "...to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It [also] tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government." Aside from that, the Times article appears to contain merely promotional material, as it says that Moadi is a foodie, and acts in the notable show Navya. However, she appears to not have a major role in the show, seeing that she is located near the bottom of the cast list, and WP:NACTOR requires that the actor have a significant role. The same can be said for the other shows she acts in, where she is also located near the bottom of the list. Aside from that, the sources of the article appear to be unreliable, or are primary sources.

To establish notability and warrant an article, a subject must have at least two reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, per the WP:GNG. I could not find any reliable sources that were independent of the subject using Google Search/Books/etc. But if you can find any reliable sources online, please feel free to insert them into the article and save it from deletion. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CollectiveSolidarity, I hope you're doing good. I've added more reliable sources as required. Jishan.JAM (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Jishan.Jam. I’m glad that you found some sources for the article, and a reliable source (Indian express) no less! However, I am not sure that it is substantial enough coverage for the actress, because the sources you added are an interview (a primary source. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability), and the Indian express only says that she acts in Navya, but nothing else substantial that indicates that she merits a separate article. But I am known for making mistakes, and if others believe the coverage is substantial enough, then feel free to !vote against my nomination. On that note, where did you find those sources? I couldn’t find any. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CollectiveSolidarity I found these articles on google images search.

https://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/lifestyle/my-most-expensive-buy-jacket-worth-900-danica-moadi

https://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/a-new-entry-in-navya/

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/danica-joins-navya-cast/783492/

https://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/danica-moadi-enter-navya

But as per this, "To establish notability and warrant an article, a subject must have at least two reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, per the WP:GNG. I could not find any reliable sources that were independent of the subject using Google Search/Books/etc. But if you can find any reliable sources online, please feel free to insert them into the article and save it from deletion. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)" I've added more than 2 sources.[reply]

I hope I've made myself clear Wikipedian. Jishan.JAM (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but these sources are still passing mentions, and they still do not appear to be reliable. As interviews, they also do not establish notability as primary sources. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails ACTOR and GNG, a whole two hits in GNews, nothing other than social media in Google. She's had one role in a movie 10 yrs ago and nothing since. No reviews of her performance, not much of anything found. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And why is "fashion blogger" and all her other career listings italicized in the article? Seems like she doesn't really do them. She's not a fashion blogger, she's a "fashion blogger"?Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nangee Philip[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suport - fails WP:GNG. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

René Thomas (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasem Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 00:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing about "Kasem Thompson" I can find is this news, which doesn't seem to be about him, but a music student sharing the name. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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