Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 15	July 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!} 23:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Universe

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

I created the article a long long time ago. I had a WP:COI in that I worked for the company for a period of time in 2009-2010, though I was not asked or paid to create the article. It was deleted at AFD, then I recreated it with new references. Said references are largely dead links now. The company seems to be defunct since it was acquired - I am not in contact with anyone I knew at the company and I believe they all since moved on. I can't confirm it's defunct though, it may still exist in some form. It might have at one time been notable or borderline notable, but I think the guidelines for notability for companies have developed since then that this may not be notable enough for inclusion anymore. Andrevan@ 23:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Software, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a look around suggests that there is virtually no independent information on this company. It does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources that are reliable, independent and in-depth. The information is outdated and needs a thorough input. --Bigneeerman (talk) 05:31, 18 July 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 00:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Lawrence

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Never previously appeared in Sherdog's top 10, nor has he been ranked in FightMatrix's top 10, his highest is 106th. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 22:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After today, he will have had 3 ufc fights. I thought that we were moving forward with the 3 fights rule as well as the Sherdog/FighMatrix thing? (FFCETT77 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

The guidelines were changed some time ago removing participation based criteria, the 3 fight rule is gone. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NSPORTS, which WP:NMMA is part of, all athletes must have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG regardless of any appearances or how high they rank on some lists. Alvaldi (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't appear to meet WP:NMMA nor WP:GNG. I found fight results and listings in databases, but nothing I would call significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find any significant coverage, therefore fails WP:GNG and every other notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 12:04, 22 July 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!} 04:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Brundage

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Never previously ranked in Sherdog's top 10, nor has he been ranked inside FightMatrix's top 10, with his highest ranking being 99th. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 22:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His third UFC fight takes place today (July 9) I thought previously 3 UFC fights was sufficient for MMA fighter notability? There are tons of UFC fighter pages who have never been ranked in the top 10 of their weight classes. Keenlycurious (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be deleted. He is fighting in the prelim main event of UFC today. Marty2Hotty (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 3 fight rule for passing WP:NMMA was changed some time ago, I advise everyone to read the guidelines. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NSPORTS, which WP:NMMA is part of, all athletes must have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG regardless of any appearances or how high they rank on some lists. Alvaldi (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched and couldn't find multiple articles with significant independent coverage in reliable sources. I found lots of fight reporting and the article in the Jiu-Jitsu Times--and I don't know if that is a reliable source. If additional sources are found, please contact me and I'll reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 23:15, 21 July 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 03:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Banerjee

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

Fails WP:NBAD and most importantly WP:GNG zoglophie 20:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. zoglophie 20:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 16 July 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 Lovecraft fandom. If there is a preferable target, like Lovecraftian horror, please address this on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Shambler

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

Venerable Lovecraftian Zine with unfortunate lack of sources. Removed Prod as there's enough to the article that it probably deserves AfD discussion, on the other hand as it stands now it does not pass WP:N. Artw (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Popular culture. Artw (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability guidelines, I was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate showing notability. Waxworker (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm actually kind of surprised that we don't have an article on the Lovecraft fandom akin to those on the Twilight and Star Trek fandoms. There's enough stuff based on his work and so on to where it should be justified. If I get the time I should look into this, but then again I've got a lot of side projects languishing away in my userspace so if anyone else wants to take a whack at it, go for it. In any case, it could/should be included on the page for Lovecraftian horror. It looks like it published works by some fairly notable authors and while that in itself isn't really something that would automatically give notability, it does feel like it should be mentioned somewhere. The LH article would probably be best, as I do think there's justification in including a section or paragraph on zines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does look like such a section would slot right in there. Would require at least some sources for verification at minimum. Artw (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw: I have added sources verifying some parts. The Locus Magazine checklist could be used to references (correct?) some more. Daranios (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack @Artw @Daranios I've started Lovecraft fandom, it is probably notable but sourcing is surprisingly sparse. Frankly, the notability looks very borderline based on sourcing I've found so far, although it's one of those cases when I feel that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES :P Feel free to help improve this, and stop by Talk:Lovecraft fandom for my notes on sources found that I either couldn't access or I am not sure whether they are reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough coverage for it to be notable. Lovewiki106 (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As far as I can see we currently have three independent secondary sources supporting the material in the article. How would deletion of this material improve Wikipedia, as opposed to WP:PRESERVEing it in some way? On the other hand, what I have seen is probably too short for a stand-alone article. So a merge to a Lovecraft fandom page would be great in my view, a merge Lovecraftian horror or another suitable target as well. Daranios (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge? If merged, it couldn't be merged with Lovecraft fandom as suggested as this is not an existing article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While there is not enough to meet GNG for stand-alone article, a redirect and a merger would be good. Since we don't have articles on Lovecraft studies or horror studies, Lovecraftian horror does appaer like the best target found so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lovecraftian horror sounds reasonable here. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Lacks refs to demonstrate GNG, ref 1 and 5 are (probably) RS, but I don't have access, still, based on the article's cited content it's probably a short review for ref 5, and short stories for ref 1 (?) per WP page. Ref 2 is a trivial, but existing source. Ref 3 is probably an SPS, and ref 4 might not be an RS. Still, there's probably enough (trivial) RS for it to be merged to Lovecraftian horror. Piotrus started an article for Lovecraft fandom, so we can merge there. VickKiang (talk) 22:57, 17 July 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 03:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sham Mashalkar

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

A few minor roles in film and television, doesn't pass WP:NACTOR , and there is virtually no in-depth coverage of her in independent, reliable sources to show she passes WP:GNG PravinGanechari (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 16 July 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 11:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Filmes

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

Non notable film production company. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not cover the criterion WP:GNG. I don`t notice significant coverage with reliable sources. --Bigneeerman (talk) 05:24, 18 July 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 British Columbia#Student facilities. Consensus is sourcing isn't sufficient for a standalone article Star Mississippi 01:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AMS Student Nest

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

non notable andpromotional. The references are not independent DGG ( talk ) 10:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some new references. Sure, the article is written in a promotional way, but I think there are enough sources out there for it to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think NemesisAT found some good sources, yep theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of British Columbia#Student facilities. Was about to close this but the new sources don't check out. Ubyssey.ca is a student paper, insufficiently independent (or reliable) for our purposes. Vancouver Foodster is a personal blog. The Georgia Straight [1] ("free weekly") and the Daily Hive [2] ("hyperlocal content") are okay but do not together pose wider than local notability. It would be sufficient to add a few sentences of context in the existing, parent section for how this topic is minimally covered in sources. (The bulk of this current article is too detailed for our purposes, owing that it comes from primary and not secondary sources. This content should just be removed.) czar 18:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I mostly agree with Czar on the source analysis, and think a selective merge would put this content in better context. I do note that WP:AUD (about local sources) is part of WP:NCORP, which does not apply here. So, I believe these sources contribute to notability. But having only two isn't enough for me. It's a young building, so I wouldn't be surprised if it does become notable in the future. Femke (talk) 12:12, 23 July 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!} 23:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Habib Ali

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

Non notable chair of education Board. Most of the article is about the board, not him, and is trivia about an event he attended. Mccapra (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability. My removal of irrelevancies edit-conflicted with this nomination but I have done it anyway - presence at a meeting launching papers by his organisation is not of encyclopedic relevance. PamD 22:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The !publications! he conducted in his time of chairmanship is definitely a relevant topic to be discussed and a reliable source/info for the readers. Mulairi^{suggest/consult} 23:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with removal of trivia, noting here indicating the subject qualifies for an article. h-index of 1, does meet WP:NPROF either. Femke (talk) 12:20, 23 July 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 delete. Article had already been deleted (WP:NACAFD). (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jonesboro, AR related articles

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

This article appears to replicate information found at Category:Jonesboro, Arkansas. I do not think it is necessary as a list when all the information is already in a category CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Actually, I’d like to withdraw this. Apparently this article does not necessary fall under a concrete reason for deletion, per MOS:LIST CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)~~. Going to let sit because Clarityfiend does have a good point. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST. Nobody has considered these as a group, and "related" is a vague, useless criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read all of that. It clearly states that is "One accepted reason", but not the only one. Dream Focus 00:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Arkansas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. AnM2002 (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This editor also created Portal:Jonesboro, Arkansas. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates You can't delete a list because you prefer categories. This is clearly a valid navigational list. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Purposes_of_lists Dream Focus 00:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I certainly made a blunder with the initial text in this nom. However, it would probably be better to call this an Index instead of a list if the subject is kept. Similar to Index of Texas-related articles. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Index of Jonesboro, Arkansas articles. This article does meet guidelines. It qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Jonesboro, Arkansas, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." List articles that organize Wikipedia's content for navigational purposes do not have to meet WP:NLIST. See also WP:LISTPURP-NAV. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apparently the page was deleted because the creator was abusing multiple accounts. Should the page be recovered, or should this AfD be closed? I have not yet run into this situation, so I am unsure of what to do.CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of procedure, this AfD should be closed. Anyone is free to recover the article if they see fit (equally, someone could nominate the recovered article for AfD). Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:02, 18 July 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 delete. Article had already been deleted (WP:NACAFD). (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jonesboro, AR related articles

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

This article appears to replicate information found at Category:Jonesboro, Arkansas. I do not think it is necessary as a list when all the information is already in a category CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Actually, I’d like to withdraw this. Apparently this article does not necessary fall under a concrete reason for deletion, per MOS:LIST CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)~~. Going to let sit because Clarityfiend does have a good point. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST. Nobody has considered these as a group, and "related" is a vague, useless criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read all of that. It clearly states that is "One accepted reason", but not the only one. Dream Focus 00:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Arkansas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. AnM2002 (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This editor also created Portal:Jonesboro, Arkansas. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates You can't delete a list because you prefer categories. This is clearly a valid navigational list. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Purposes_of_lists Dream Focus 00:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I certainly made a blunder with the initial text in this nom. However, it would probably be better to call this an Index instead of a list if the subject is kept. Similar to Index of Texas-related articles. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Index of Jonesboro, Arkansas articles. This article does meet guidelines. It qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Jonesboro, Arkansas, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." List articles that organize Wikipedia's content for navigational purposes do not have to meet WP:NLIST. See also WP:LISTPURP-NAV. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apparently the page was deleted because the creator was abusing multiple accounts. Should the page be recovered, or should this AfD be closed? I have not yet run into this situation, so I am unsure of what to do.CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of procedure, this AfD should be closed. Anyone is free to recover the article if they see fit (equally, someone could nominate the recovered article for AfD). Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:02, 18 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. Weinman

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

Only a stub and the only reference is dead. Without more detail the article is not worth keeping. Rathfelder (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Sri Lanka. Rathfelder (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have updated references - satisfies WP:NJUDGE and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Happy to withdraw this. Rathfelder (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of the legislative council of Ceylon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 20 July 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!} 23:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Labadie

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and United States of America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:06, 19 July 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!} 23:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto van Gurp

(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 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and United States of America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 02:12, 19 July 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!} 23:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Aumae

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 02:18, 19 July 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!} 23:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Albert

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing here is not even remotely close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 20 July 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!} 23:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hadisi Aengari

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing we have is not enough to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 20 July 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!} 23:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Koti

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 20 July 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!} 23:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Kiriau

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 20 July 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!} 23:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Kini

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 02:14, 19 July 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!} 23:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Sale Kilifa

(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 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He comes from a football family including Moffat Kilifa who is also up for deletion. He is mentioned in some of the coverage about his younger brother Moffat but I haven't searched just for Nelson Sale yet. Please note: Nelson Sale Kilifa has played in multiple geographies so you have to search manually and separately by country. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 20 July 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!} 23:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moffat Kilifa

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to take a while to sort through all the coverage for this player. (I started adding some articles but there are many others to go through.) You have to set your search engines for Solomon Islands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and Vanuatu. You also have to allow for spelling variations of his last name (Kilifa or Kalifa) and his first name (Moffat or Moffit). Also I'm finding Google Translate cannot handle translation from Bislama. I think we need to focus on fixing his infobox as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 02:17, 19 July 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 Paradise (Cody Simpson album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So Listen

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

Having done a search on this, I don't think it meets WP:SIGCOV which is an essential part of WP:NSONGS. Songs must receive coverage independent of their parent album. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Australia. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent album, Paradise, which includes information on bonus singles. If required, more information from here could be transcluded there.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per nomination. It's almost impressive to have released a single in the 2010s with a T-Pain feature that didn't chart. (Yet, at the same time, is pretty damning in terms of notability.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per the above comments. Dan arndt (talk) 07:50, 20 July 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!} 23:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Filiatrault

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

Semi-professional soccer player. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need time for more significant sources. SoccerElite45 (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Florida, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In Google, I found a passing mention in Duluth News Tribune. No hits on Newspapers.com or ProQuest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced and non notable. Kablammo (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:26, 17 July 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!} 23:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Teddy

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

Unable to find enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Trinidad and Tobago. Ploni (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing about the subject, only with teddy bears in general. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 16 July 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!} 23:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concealed 360

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

Student film with no evidence of notability. Ploni (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found this[3] but not a lot else beyond what is already there, which is not really enough. It’s a cute idea but maybe in 2012 not THAT innovative? Anyway, this is probably a delete unless anything else comes up. Artw (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no solid evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. The only sources that appear to discuss the film are the California State East Bay and The Pioneer Online. Generally, student media and interviews are not enough to demonstrate notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:07, 20 July 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. Consensus seems to that the individual convincingly satisfies WP:GNG. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norasharee Gous

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

Fails WP:CRIMINAL. Nothing in the article indicates he was some outstanding drug dealer or that there was a miscarriage of justice / wrongful conviction. The surrounding media circus essentially boils down to the fact that some people and organizations disagree with capital punishment for drug offenses, but presently capital punishment for drug trafficking is applied in at least 33 countries, so hardly every single convict warrants an article in that regard. Brandmeister^talk 15:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Brandmeister^talk 15:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom, this appears routine, in Singapore at least. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do not think his article should be deleted. His case was covered by the media over a certain range of years and he even gained international attention. It does not necessarily mean a case without lost-lasting effects should be deleted since from the POV of the international groups, his case was to show the alleged ineffectiveness of the death penalty against drugs.--NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's obvious that NelsonLee20042020 is some sort of anti death penalty activist putting his biased spin on every wikipedia he touch. This criminal is not even notable and most people didn't even know about his case. This article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not make baseless accusations against other editors. Should also be noted that this user has made little edits to the site outside this topic in the past year. Inexpiable (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me, sorry. I am actually one who absolutely support the death penalty without objection. I do not have any agenda at all, but it was due to my interest in this topic and that's why I create articles of death row inmates, their cases are interesting. Mostly my editing stance is neutral and kind of leaning towards the support for capital punishment. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Executions in Singapore are controversial and now more notable as they are not frequent, especially as it was for drug trafficking and not murder. The subject is receiving widespread and international coverage across the globe, including in the United Kingdom and the United States: [4], [5] Inexpiable (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks more like WP:RECENTISM. In the absence of wrongful conviction it's unclear why out of dozens countries who execute for drug offenses Singapore is singled out. A popular call for criminal justice reform would be more useful instead. Brandmeister^talk 16:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then should you say the same thing about Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam when it was also being paid attention to days before his execution. Although it may be a different extent compared to Kalwant, but think about it, the whole world singled out Singapore specifically due to the international law standards which did not include drug trafficking as one of the worst offences (they should have included it actually), and Singapore did not follow it. It was precisely why they have such sensitivity to paid this particular attention to Singapore executing drug traffickers--NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anti-death penalty movement in Singapore has been going strong since Nagaenthran. These people are the embodiment of the movement, at least during this period of protests. -Jiaminglimjm (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. Do you have a source for this? A few dozen loud Malaysian or Singaporean activists making noise about Singapore executions does not equate to having a strong movement internally in Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was the involvement of the United Nations, Amnesty International and the European Union in the case, where they were critical of Singapore's use of the death penalty for drugs, which was not a common practice in most countries. Because of it, it cannot be said that the opposition is merely limited to the activists themselves, as they got support and backing from these major organizations (of course to me personally this kind of support should not be given for these criminals). NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: some policy-based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is dealing more with the capital punishment debate as well been notable enough for large Marcia coverage. The fact the drugs were in such a small quantity adds to general discourse of the capital punishment debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizcallers (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 July 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!} 23:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rarangia

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirementsProton Dental (talk) 00:50, 17 July 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!} 23:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Ray

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 00:52, 17 July 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 Draftify for the author to continue working, since there's the possibility he might be notable. No harm in giving more time to work, but consensus is clear it's not appropriate for mainspace. Star Mississippi 01:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Kudzawu-D'Pherdd

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

Despite great detail and voluminous referencing it’s not clear to me that this subject is notable. He has had an interesting career but I don’t see positions or awards that would make notability clear. The refbombing does not include independent in depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Engineering. Mccapra (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. Appears as a columnist in a few newspapers that I could find online, nothing substantial. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

refbombing wasn't purposeful. Was advised to ref every content. New here, still learning the ropes. Guidance welcomed. Amekomedo (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi thanks for your note. To establish that a person like thus subject is notable enough to have a bio article on Wikipedia we have a policy at WP:NACADEMIC. So we’re looking for reliable independent sources that confirm the subject passes at least one of these criteria. Other references may verify individual facts in the article, but notability is key to establishing that there should be an article at all. Mccapra (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article creator @Amekomedo: has requested draftification for further work. I have no objection to this. Mccapra (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence. But considering all the subject's activities outside academia, including media coverage and practitioner impact, one could consider he is meeting criterium 7. JamesKH76 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 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!} 23:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Luwi

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 20 July 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!} 23:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Lui

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this sourcing is not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 20 July 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!} 23:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Laua

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 04:27, 17 July 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!} 23:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raynick Laeta

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 04:26, 17 July 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!} 23:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Alassane

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

Fails WP:GNG, I could find no evidence of this player meeting our notability guidelines. Also, two sources (reference 1 and reference 2) are primarily for his father and not for him. The only source referencing him is a primary source, perhaps there are better sources and but I was unable to find these. Proton Dental (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Proton Dental (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:34, 16 July 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!} 23:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Sikovi

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 04:25, 17 July 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!} 23:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meripa Seumanutafa

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 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) 13:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. We need another like this. Giant Snowman 19:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is well-sourced, and the Samoa Times and Samoan Observer sources are enough to demonstrate notability.--IdiotSavant (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Samoa Observor piece is syndicated directly from the OFC, so its independence is questionable but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. The Samoa Times article would be good, and would otherwise be enough to prove notability, but I have serious concerns about that newspapers' reliability. From what I can tell, it's not actually an established Samoan newspaper of any sort, but rather a weekly community newspaper from Auckland, and their website provides no indication that they have an editorial team. I could not find any better sources from a search. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Samoa Times was the longest-serving Samoan-language newspaper in New Zealand, based in New Zealand's largest Polynesian city. It was absolutely real media (for a non-English-language community), but largely print-based. There's an analysis of it from the Pacific Media Center here, and more here. IdiotSavant (talk) 11:48, 22 July 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!} 23:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pasi Schwalger

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added sources, and there is clear notability, with multiple articles specifically about them as well as routine coverage to establish facts. Given the sourceless state of the original article, I can understand the desire to do something about it, but this has happened repeatedly from your recent nominations, and I think sticking an unreferenced, BLP sources, or refimprove tag on an article would be more appropriate than jumping straight to an AfD nomination. --IdiotSavant (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with everything @IdiotSavant: said, especially about the nominators actions. In addition to the sources already in the article, Paso Schwalger is regarded as one of Samoa's best ever players (see this). Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE, admittedly, the only non-routine coverage comes from non-notable local newspapers, but these newspapers serve the City of Wyndham, which has a population of roughly a quarter of a million, a large enough catchment area for their reliability to be assumed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sourcing added seems to be just enough to pass the WP:GNG. Pinging User:GiantSnowman as they asked to be pinged if sources were found and I don't think they have been yet. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how any of the sources pass GNG? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. Firstly, I don't see how any of the online sources contributes to meeting the GNG. The two best newspaper pieces as I see them are the ones by Paddy Higgs and Lance Jenkinson. Both seem to be independent, reliable, secondary, and, in my opinion, give weak significant coverage. Others may pick different 'best' ones. I don't see that as a strong argument, though, and I do see deletion as an acceptable outcome. However, I think it should still be kept. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 03:16, 23 July 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 03:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bennett (businessman)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs seems to be mostly about business. Possibly redirect. scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles that focus on him are both based on interviews, so there's not enough independent coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:22, 20 July 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!} 23:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. And Mrs. Chinnathirai

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

there are nearly no reliable sources provided, doesn't appear to be notable per WP:GNG Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NTV or WP:GNG, with only the usual churnalism coverage in Indian English-language press. Can't comment on reliable sources in Tamil. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. and Mrs. Chinnathirai (Season 4), and article creator's user talk page. Storchy (talk) 11:42, 16 July 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!} 23:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InBios

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

InBios Does not meet WP:CORP. It's been flagged for not meeting WP:GNG since 2014. I looked on google scholar here and could find a few independent reliable sources discussing accuracy of some of their produced tests, but nothing about the organisation itself.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"InBios International, Inc"			✘ No
"InBios Receives EUA from FDA for its Smart Detect SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR Kit."		Dependent significant coverage as it is a press release	✘ No
"InBios Receives FDA EUA FOR COVID-19 Antibody Test."		Press release	✘ No
"InBios Receives FDA EUA for Second COVID-19 Antibody Test."		Press release	✘ No
"DoD Awards $12.67M Contract to InBios"		Press release	✘ No
"InBios Receives FDA EUA for Zika ELISA."		Press release	✘ No
"InBios Granted FDA Market Authorization."		Press release	✘ No
"InBios Releases First FDA Cleared Dengue Fever Test in the US"		Press release	✘ No
"FDA permits marketing of first test to help diagnose dengue fever"		Press release	✘ No
"Design considerations for immunodiagnostics"	InBios author was on the publication		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Current references are press releases written by the company, and a DOD and an FDA mention that essentially note the company's existence. There's one other report here which at least has the virtue of being independent of the InBios PR department, but does not cover the company so much as the CEO's views on pandemic management. Too little there to meet GNG. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:30, 17 July 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. There does not appear to be consensus for a redirect, but this does not preclude one created as an editorial decision following deletion. Star Mississippi 01:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Petty

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

Subject fails WP:CRIM; only apparent reason for subject's media coverage is that he is married to Nicki Minaj, thus meets WP:INVALIDBIO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question. these days I'm rarely brave enough to look at AFD but when I do I'm usually perplexed. Why do you think a redirect would be unsuitable? Do you think the information about Petty in Nicki Minaj should be removed? Or extended so that the present article becomes otiose? Or is WP's search facility now so good as to make such redirects redundant? Or would the presence of a redirect make Google carry out some undesirable indexing? I wonder what is your line of thinking here? Thincat (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's a very long time since I nominated an article at AFD and so the process is unfamiliar. Sure, I'd be fine with it being made a redirect, but I assumed the creator, who has clearly put some work into the article, would not have accepted that, in which case it would end up at AFD anyway. With regard to the information on Minaj's page - of course it should not be removed, and I'd be fine with more about her husband's past being added to that article so long as it isn't excessive. WP:CRIM states that A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person, and the Minaj article would qualify here. One might alternatively argue that Petty is also known as Minaj's husband, and that therefore he qualifies under CRIM, but just being known as somebody else's spouse also meets INVALIDBIO. Basically, this guy would not have an article if he wasn't Minaj's husband, because neither his crimes nor his career are significant enough to qualify. Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful reply. I shan't !vote here but I'll watch as future participants strive to reach a harmonious consensus! Thincat (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the thoughtful response. Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I now see from talk that the unstated AFD rationale may be to block the article's progress through DYK. Would that not be an abuse of process? (None of my remarks should be taken as support for the presence of the article). Thincat (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I was in the habit of trying to block an article's progress at DYK through AFD I would be here on a regular basis, which clearly I am not. Besides, whether an article should exist and whether it should be featured at DYK are two separate issues, and I might object to this article being promoted at DYK regardless of the outcome here, given that it reads as little more than an attack page. The reason I started this AFD is quite simply that I could not see any justification for its existence, per CRIM and INVALIDBIO, that's all there is to it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not !voting since I'm the creator but point 2 of WP:CRIM says that the subject is noteworthy if the event is "well-documented". Coverage (in publications with very rigorous editorial standards) has been going on this for years. And that he's married to Minaj is only relevant because she caused the coverage to explode, but that doesn't make the extensive coverage in reliable sources invalid. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the information here warrants its own article. Additionally, we aren't allowed to use mugshots of people as their lead images. The article in question seems very defamatory, with no mention of Minaj's legal statement against the accusations, nor the only reason that Hough dropped the lawsuit is because of "jurisdictional issues." rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 07:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and there is nothing in the article for which this individual would be notable, except that he has a famous spouse. BD2412 T 17:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it does not make enough common sense for Petty to make an entry on WP as it lacks WP:NOTABILITY. He's only an individual who's not best known for anything and also an unknown offender. Just because he married an all-star rapper doesn't make him noticeable enough. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 20:21, 20 July 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!} 23:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeshwer Singh

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

Challenging a removed PROD. Does not meet the definition of a notable politician(holds no public office and has not won election to one). Most of the sources here consist of party activities or Mr. Singh making political statements. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ref bombs, non-notable functionary of a political party. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has not won an election or holding an elected position or a prominent public office position Proton Dental (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Proton Dental: Can you please tell me that Neeraj Kundan has also not won any election then why his article is there in this encyclopedia? Pok aiᗙ Happy New Year!

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being vice-presidents of political party youth wings, and the referencing consists of a mix of primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him, and sourcing where he's the person doing the speaking rather than the person being spoken about — none of which are support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that as he is the Vice President of a prominent political party so his article should be there in this encyclopedia or at least redirect to Jammu & Kashmir National Conference but must not be deleted. Pok aiᗙ Happy New Year!

Pokai This person is not the "Vice President of a prominent political party", they are the Vice President of the youth wing of a political party. Even setting that aside, "Vice President of a prominent political party" is not part of the notability criteria for politicians, meaning he would need to be shown to meet the broader definition of a notable person. The article does not do that at present, as the only claim to notability is "he usually raises issues of common people", without describing any influence or significance in doing so. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 23 July 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!} 23:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Alphabet of Mahl Transliteration

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

There do not seem to be any sources to be found that verify that this exists, pages can redirect to the IAST romanisation instead as this is supported by sources Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 08:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is not a hoax, it's an unreferenced entry about something that the author couldn't even name consistently with the English sources. No interwiki nor name in another language is given to try to help figure out if sources may exist in another language. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, couldn't find any RS on Google, News, Books, and Scholar. VickKiang (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 03:45, 20 July 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 Operation Pyrsos. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian-Greek border incident

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

The whole article is based on two sources. One is a primary source from August 12, 1949 (here), that actually refers to an Albanian radio report from August 10, which talked about an alleged invasion; however, in the same article we read that this was dismissed by Greece's Ministry for War as "fantastic" (fictitious), while Greek circles in London said that the allegation had no credence and that the only fighting that was taking place was near the Albanian border, as a result of the ongoing Greek Civil War between the Greek Government troops and the Greek Communists. But despite the misrepresentation of the primary source, we also have to take into account WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:RSBREAKING. The second source is an Albanian newspaper article by an individual named Përparim Halili (here); i did a quick search and he appears to be a journalist. In short, the article lacks reliable secondary sources, such as publications with a focus on military history; per WP:RSCONTEXT. Even the image that is being used is misleading. User:Wilhelm ii0, who created the article and uploaded the image, claims that it shows the bombardment of an Albanian village on 14 August, 1949; however, this photograph shows the Greek army opening fire against Greek guerrilla troops on 22nd May, 1948 (more than a year prior of the alleged incident). The image was actually taken from Getty Images (here), and constitutes a copyright violation; it has been nominated for speedy deletion. This supposed incident is obviously an outdated rumour that is based on the contemporaneous and easily verifiable Operation Pyrsos (needs some work as well), which marked the end of the Greek Civil War. Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Greece. Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. There was talk of a possible invasion: [6][7], but the same sources discussing the possible invasion do not say it happened. Pikavoom ^Talk 13:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Operation Pyrsos, seeing this was expanded with some sources now, and the text was expanded and improved with proper attribution. It certainly shouldn't stay as a standalone article as it is a WP:POVFORK of Pyrsos, describing events from the point of view of communist Albania. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this definitely happened as there are many sources which refer to the clashes. I started rewriting the article. It maybe difficult for non-Albanians to find sources in Albanian because the clashes are known as the Greek provocations of 1949.Truthseeker2006 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Albanian article that you linked above was created by an IP, and doesn't include a single reference to support the claims. Furthermore, the three additional sources you included in the article, corroborate the point made above by User:Pikavoom. It also shows that the discussed article is essentially a WP:POVFORK of Operation Pyrsos (also known as Operation Torch; not to be confused with the 1942 Operation Torch). Here are the relevant quotes, and my own comments on them:

Gibler (2019): In August 1949 Albania claimed that Greek forces were invading the southern part of the country in an attempt to gain territory. The United Nations dismissed the allegation, citing Greece's efforts to fight the Communist rebels in the face of Albania's over support for the insurgency.

Comment: The Albanian claims of a supposed invasion were dismissed by the United Nations, citing Greece's fight against the Greek Communist rebels, who enjoyed Albanian support. The official name of that operation is "Operation Pyrsos", not the "Albanian-Greek border incident" or the "August 1949 provocations".

Koçi (2018): The Balkan Wars (1912-1913), delineation of Albania's borders, the Corfu Protocol (1914), the Peace Conference in Paris (1920), the Italy-Greek War, the deportation of the Cham population (1944-1945), the Peace Conference in Paris (1946) and the earthly claims about the so called Northern Epirus, the involvement of the Albanian communist state in the Greek Civil War (1946-1949) and the August 1949 provocations organized by the Greek government over the territory of the Albanian state, are episodes of a long series of misunderstandings and hate between the two states and populations; ...

Comment: The only thing that the Albanian historian Koçi is saying here, is that there were allegedly some Greek provocations in August 1949; these though, happen to coincide with the aforementioned "Operation Pyrsos". It appears that in Albanian historiography, that Greek military operation is known as the "August 1949 provocations". I cannot find a single non-Albanian author who used this term.

Paravantes (2020): Shortly thereafter, following a discussion with Deputy Prime Minister Tsaldaris, the British chargé d'affaires informed the State Department that both the British and French governments believed that the Greek army was planning an attack on Albania. Contradicting statements by UK Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin in July, the British advised that the US should move quickly to prevent Greece from attacking Albania and noted that they had informed the Greeks that should a conflict with Albania be initiated, no military or diplomatic support could be guaranteed to them. In mid-August 1949, Tsaldaris again met with Bevin in Strasbourg to discuss international alternatives to Greek military intervention in Albania that would address the Albanians' continued assistance to Greek communist forces. Bevin said that if the communist forces continued to retreat into Albania and to launch attacks from that country, regardless of whether the Albanian forces were actually taking part, the incident would cease to be a Greek issue and would move in the international sphere of aggression by one state against another. He suggested that the matter be taken up in the United Nations, with Britain and the United States leading the action against Albania.

Comment: As User:Pikavoom wrote above, it seems that plans or talks of a possible invasion did indeed exist, but this never actually happened due to objections by the UK and US. Could some of the clashes between the Greek Government troops and the Greek rebels have taken place near or on the Greek-Albanian border? Sure they could have, but this was due to the constant retreat of the Greek rebel forces behind the Albanian border. Again, this is officially known as "Operation Pyrsos", and its aim was to eliminate the remaining strongholds of the Greek rebels in Gramos and Vitsi; at the Greek-Albanian border.

Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge per Spiderone and Demetrios1993. The article already exists under the more precise title "Operation Pyrsos". Having two articles about the same subject, isn't helpful. The "Albanian-Greek border incident" is a generic and ambiguous title which not only lacks precision such as a date or another type of qualifier like how it was done elsewhere, i.e. 2020 Greek–Turkish border crisis, but also this is not how the sources do call it. Edit: I checked thoroughly the Wikipedia Project and my findings confirm my expectations: The historic operations/incidents across Wikipedia got their articles named accordingly with the sources and for clarity. An article with an ambiguous title like this one, is not in line with Wikipedia's standard practices and only serves as a WP:POVFORK to the other article. Edit 2: Changing my vote from Delete to Merge, as I have noticed that the article has been expanded further in meantime, citing unreliable sources in some instances; if the article is to be Merged instead of deleted, then the unreliable or non-secondary sources, will have to be removed or replaced with ones that meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:RS. The last thing we need here in dealing with POVFORK articles such as this one, is to deteriorate the original article's quality by adding dubious sources or primary sources reflecting the Communist propaganda which has no place in Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Operation Pyrsos. Demetrios1993 has analysed the historiography. Some of this might usefully be added to the article. A redirect from Greek provocations of 1949 might also be merited, if that is what Albanian historiography calls it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to include some of this content in Operation Pyrsos as well, as long as it is based on reliable secondary sources and we don't give undue weight to minor aspects (per WP:BALANCING). I also don't have a problem with using Greek provocations of 1949 as a redirect. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are many sources in Albanian about the clashes, a delete or a merge are not warranted. I used a long article from Gazeta Shqip which reproduces the official reports of Albania in August of 1949, but more can be written based on the same source and other populations. Durraz0 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having many sources in Albanian, doesn't really rebut the fact that what Albanian historiography calls the "August 1949 provocations", is a reference to what the rest of the world knows as "Operation Pyrsos"; thus, the nominated article is essentially a WP:POVFORK of the latter. That is the reason you cannot find anything about the "August 1949 provocations" in publications by non-Albanian authors; it's because it is known by another name. It's also no coincidence that both the "August 1949 provocations" and "Operation Pyrsos" began on August 2, and that both lasted until the end of the month. Furthermore, the newspaper article by Gazeta Shqip isn't an ideal source, as it is a newspaper article (a publication with a focus on military history would be more preferable per WP:RSCONTEXT) written by an obscure individual named Darsnor Kaloçi (is he a historian?) who reproduced primary sources, such as articles by Bashkimi and Zëri i Popullit, which at the time served as propaganda organs for the Party of Labour of Albania. But regardless of that, he essentially confirms that the reason Greece attacked in August 1949, was in order to eliminate the remaining strongholds of the Greek partisans in northern Greece; but since they also had bases inside Albanian territory, some of the fighting spilled beyond the borders as well. He also confirmed that in Albanian historiography and the propaganda of the communist regime before the 1990s, this Greek operation was known as "Provocations of August 1949". Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to many sources that this event happened,it deserves its own article Wilhelm ii0 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There plenty of sources, which support the claim, that an attack by the greek army happend, thus I don't see a reason for the deletion of the article. Karadakli230 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Operation Pyrsos, as it is now apparent that this is a WP:POVFORK of it, and i believe that some of the existing content would be useful for it. However, i only support the inclusion of content that is based on reliable secondary sources, without giving undue weight to minor aspects; per WP:BALANCING. Per WP:SOURCEDEF, we also have to be very careful about the credentials of the authors we use, as well as WP:RSEDITORIAL. Demetrios1993 (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The content should definitely stay, however a significant restructure is need. The way that the article is written, it reads as though the incident was one protracted event whereby Greece attempted to invade Albania from 2 August-5 September 1949. However this is incorrect, in reality this was multiple border clashes occurring as isolated incidences, rather than a combined campaign. The page may stay as is if the original contributors want to completely restructure it, however a merge to Operation Pyrsos would create less work and make sense, given that they overlap. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:POVFORK and the points raised by Demetrios1993, which have not been rebutted. Khirurg (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many sources which speak on the subject matter, treating it as a separate event from the larger Operation Pyrsos, which largely took place within the borders of Greece. Articles of this type are not at all uncommon in Wikipedia, with there being several articles on border incidents including Albanian-Yugoslav, Taliban-Iran/Pakistan, Israel-Syria, China-India etc. This should not be an exception. I will expand the article more, and would appreciate if it is not prematurely deleted without consensus.Alltan (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But why is it that only Albanian sources are talking about the August 1949 provocations? If it was indeed a different event, you would expect to find non-Albanian authors as well, talking about the August 1949 provocations. Also, why is it that no Albanian author is using the term "Operation Pyrsos" to denote a separate contemporaneous event against the Greek communists, if it is indeed viewed as a separate event? Personally, i haven't found an Albanian source that talks about "Operation Pyrsos". Furthermore, concerning the expansion of the Albanian-Greek border incident, i have to repeat again the need to use reliable secondary sources by credible authors. The current version rests too much on Albanian primary sources and newspaper/magazine articles by obscure authors. I am specifically referring to the following three references; source 1, source 2, source 3. What are the credentials of Përparim Halili, Jorgo Qirici, and Dashnor Kaloçi? In the case of a "merge", most of this content would have to be removed; i was actually thinking of a separate section that would deal specifically with the August 1949 events from the point of view of Albania, but only if it could be supported by scholarly material. The only reason that would justify a separate article in my opinion, would be if it was large enough, to the point that a "merge" would cause undue weight concerns (WP:SPINOFF); but again, its content would have to be based on reliable secondary sources. Even though the size of the nominated article is currently large enough when compared to the current state of Operation Pyrsos (it can be expanded more), it is unfortunately mostly based on the three aforementioned questionable sources. So, my advice would be to try and find reliable scholarly sources, and if they are detailed enough, then i wouldn't have a problem with a "keep". Believe me, the last thing i want is to have to deal with undue weight and content disputes after a "merge". Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all I don't get the whole replying to nearly every "Keep" vote that gets on here. I understand there are good intentions, but it just gets TL;DR after a while. Now besides that, I will make it clear that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a source being Albanian. They can absolutely be used just as much as any other RS. The authors being Albanian does in fact not make it fail RS, nor does it make them questionable (but yes there are non-Albanian sources that talk about the matter). Further on, the source I added is by Jorgo Qirici, an Albanian army lieutenant (might be an ethnic Greek according to some FB posts of him) who writes for the official Military Magazine of the Albanian army. Another thing, the whole focus on Operation Pyrsos being the wider operation under which this happened might not be correct, as the quote I added by Papagos specifically separates the Grammos and Vitsi operation from the Albanian one. But even if that is not the case, just like this article may be a further expanded version of Pyrsos, so is operation Pyrsos just a part of the wider Greek civil war. But we obviously separate the latter, since there is need for a more specialized article to delve into the specific theatres of war which took place concurrently to each other. We also do this since there are multiple sources on the topic. As far as I can see the operation Pyrsos article is much smaller and delves into the theme far, far less than the current article. And I can tell you, there are many, many more sources on this subject. Just need time to add them all.Alltan (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Dashnor Kaloci has done some excellent investigative work into the matter. I had not checked him out before but will most definately use him.Alltan (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfDs are meant for constructive on-topic discussions, and commenting under "votes" or recommended courses of action is a typical practice of this procedure per WP:DISCUSSAFD. There is nothing irregular about it. Second, i never said or implied that just because a source is by an Albanian author, this affects its reliability. My reference to Albanian and non-Albanian sources, has to do with trying to understand if the "August 1949 provocations", as an event, is to be found only in Albanian historiography, or others as well. Now you claim that there are non-Albanian sources that talk about the event. Which are those? Concerning Papagos' quote, even if true (i haven't managed to verify it), it is already established above that plans or talks of a possible invasion did indeed exist, but this never actually happened due to objections by the UK and US. Even the UN dismissed these claims. What seems to have happened are isolated incidents as a result of the broader offensive against the Greek communists, who were actually present on both sides of the border; this is even indicated by the term "August 1949 provocations" that is used to describe them in Albanian historiography, as opposed to "August 1949 invasion". As for the use of separate articles to describe certain aspects of a single event in more detail, i already told you that i am perfectly fine with spinoff subarticles, but only if such details are supported by reliable scholarly material, and we are not dealing with a WP:POVFORK. The assessment of primary sources (affiliated with the Communist Party of Albania) by individuals such as Jorgo Qirici and Dashnor Kaloçi should be viewed with extreme caution. Being an Albanian army lieutenant or investigative journalist doesn't automatically make you into a specialist or recognized expert on the topic; non-authoritative statements cannot be presented as facts per WP:RS. If there are many sources on the subject, it shouldn't be that difficult to find detailed scholarly sources. Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The articles' title is "Albanian-Greek border incident" not "August 1949 provocations". The events happened and there are sources which speak about it. Them being part of Albanian historiography does not somehow make them unreliable. I will add historiographical sources to the article as well, and will say I am feeling rather rushed with it, since you immediately went to AfD it instead of say opening a talk page discussion. The article is not a POV fork. Pyrsos as an article describes Greek monarchists fighting Greek communists. This Article describes Greek monarchists fighting Albanian border guards. A POV-fork would be writing an article describing Operation Pyrsos from a Greek communist POV, something which this is absolutely not. Your original arguments about there only being 2 sources have been adressed, the copyrighted image was removed and the article is currently in the process of being improved. The more I read up on it, it seems that these events spanned an area from Devoll down to Finiq, almost the entire Greek-Albanian border. I have added a source which says ::In fact , that had already happened in August 1949 , when Greek military forces entered Albanian territory in was subsequently seen in Tirana as an effort to establish the Greek chauvinist claims on Korça and Gjirokastra. 13 Days later the UN's special committee published a supplementary report , which would de facto justify the Greek intervention, concluding that Greece should not be expected to tolerate the Albanian support for regime change in Greece". Its an English source, published by Hurst. Alltan (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - The title that was chosen by Wilhelm ii0, who created the article, is "Albanian-Greek border incident", but that's not how it is known in Albanian historiography. Again, i never said anything about Albanian historiography being unreliable. I said that primary and non-scholarly sources should be treated with extreme caution. As for whether this is a WP:POVFORK of Operation Pyrsos, describing events from the point of view of communist Albania. The incidents that are described are contemporaneous to Operation Pyrsos, and in the same location; the broader area of Grammos. Also, most of the content is ultimately based on primary sources that were affiliated with the Communist Party of Albania. For example, articles by Bashkimi and Zëri i Popullit, which at the time served as propaganda organs for the Communist Party of Albania, or documents by its defense ministry that are used by Jorgo Qirici. Furthermore, Operation Pyrsos wasn't just limited within Greek borders, and it didn't just involve Greek governmental and communist forces; communist Albania actively supported the latter, and the fighting had spilled within Albanian territory as well. Dashnor Kaloçi wrote the following:

Po kështu edhe mali i Gramozit dhe zona të tjera në brendësi të kufirit shtetëror në zonën e Korçës dhe Kolonjës, ishin kthyer në baza të ushtrisë partizane greke të gjeneralit Marko Vafjadhis dhe aty ishin ngritur edhe disa spitale ushtarake ku kuroheshin dhe mjekoheshin partizanët grekë. Si rezultat i gjithë këtyre, të cilat Athina zyrtare e asaj kohe i konsideronte ndërhyrje zyrtare në punët e brendshme të saj, në gushtin e vitit 1949, ajo i sulmoi forcat partizane greke deri në pozicionet e tyre të fundit, në malin e Gramozit, duke i ndjekur ata edhe brenda territorit shqiptar, ku partizanët grekë u tërhoqën për t'u shpëtuar sulmeve shkatërrimtare të forcave qeveritare greke.

While military historian Jonathan House, wrote the following:

Their hopes to hold out until winter were dashed when the government launched Operation Pyrsos (Torch) in August 1949. ... On the 25th, the GNA [Greek National Army] moved rapidly to seal off Grammos from neighboring Albania. The next day, the Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha followed Tito's lead, halting artillery fire from inside his country and announcing that anyone crossing the border would be interned. Although he did not attempt to disarm the DAG [Democratic Army of Greece] troops, he did threaten to cut off food supplies if they returned to Greece. By the end of the month, all resistance had ceased in the Grammos Mountains, leaving the GNA in possession of 40 field guns, 600 machine guns, and 200 mortars, as well as 1,000 dead DAG fanatics. The Greek Civil War virtually ended with Operation Pyrsos.

Even the quote (it wasn't copied accurately, and 13 is a reference number) you shared above by Albanian author Paulin Kola (2003), corroborates all these. On the other hand, Jorgo Qirici (an Albanian army lieutenant) that you used to expand the article, doesn't even acknowledge such support and treats it as fiction. As for the discussed events spanning an area from Devoll down to Finiq; not really. You are obviously referring to a single incident with a plane that Jorgo Qirici wrote about. However, that plane was taking off from Corfu, and was simply being used for reconnaissance up to the area of Grammos; it was passing through Finiq, because its base was in Corfu. In any case, i understand that at this point a "merge" would only cause undue weight issues; however, this doesn't negate some of the aforementioned issues. Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The events being contemporaneous and related doesn't mean one must be a fork of the other. And yes, the Albanians had supported the Greek communist rebels, something which was often used as a pretext for the attacks which happened within Albania. Jorgo Qirici's article was published in Revista Ushtarake in 2016, the official military magazine of Albania. Any particular view of his should be compared and juxtaposed with other sources. On the plane incident, it was intercepted and downed after simply violating Albanian airspace in the midst of heated skirmishes and an ongoing escalation on the border. It's incidents like this which have caused Albanian sources to refer to the events as provocations. Alltan (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I already explained why this is a WP:POVFORK. Furthermore, a legitimate WP:SPINOFF would at the very least treat these incidents as part of the broader Operation Pyrsos, which is even corroborated by Dashnor Kaloçi. As for Jorgo Qirici's article being published in Revista Ushtarake in 2016, you are mistaken. Your citation is actually a supposed reproduction of an article by Jorgo Qirici in Revista Ushtarake, published by www.radiokosovaelire.com on 4 February 2016; this date doesn't pertain to the publication of the actual article. And even if such an article was published by Revista Ushtarake, it doesn't make it reliable. Reliability can be affected by the type of the work, the publisher, and the creator of the work, whom in this case is an Albanian army lieutenant without any academic credentials, citing primary sources from the defence ministry of communist Albania. Last, the heated skirmishes happened in the broader area of Grammos, and were directly linked to the offensive of Operation Pyrsos; so was the incident with the plane apparently, which despite its violation, was used for reconnaissance up to the area of Grammos. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the excellent argumentation of Alltan. The original AfD request was based on the fact that the article had only two sources, one being a primary source. The article has since been expanded with new credible sources. The content is now clearly worthy of having its own article. Furthermore, I wanted to emphasize the fact that the credibility of a source should not be based on the ethnicity of its author. Also, the copyrighted picture was removed so this has nothing to do with the deletion or merge of the article. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason why this article cannot stand alone; as explained by Alltan, specialised articles are required for different theatres of war, and indeed, there is an abundancy of sources that can be used to further expand this article. To me, it would seem that a merge into Operation Pyrsos would downplay the content of the current article - it will minimalise the importance of the content in this article and the reality of the events. What I am trying to say, is that it will mask the defeat of the Greeks by Albanian forces, which is something I believe may have motivated the push to initially delete (and upon realising that it's not right, merge) this article - the historical reality portrayed by this article is simply disliked. Now, that aside, there's plenty of sources that can be used, such as [[8]] (pg. 258) among many others. Like Alltan stated, time is needed to find them all. Rome wasn't built in a day, and a hasty move to try and delete it then later merge it serves no real benefit at all whatsoever. Botushali (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained to Alltan, there is nothing wrong with spinoff subarticles to present certain aspects of an event in more detail, but as Pikavoom also said above, this appears more as a WP:POVFORK of Operation Pyrsos, describing events from the point of view of communist Albania. It's no coincidence that you cannot find anything about it in non-Albanian sources, nor any mention of Pyrsos in Albanian sources; it is the same event. The reason that no Greek communists are mentioned in the official Albanian narrative of the time, in relation to that event, probably has to do with the fact that their presence and activity on Albanian territory, as well as the support that they received from the Albanian state, was all part of a secret operation known as "Aksioni 10"; this is mentioned by Dashnor Kaloçi who was discussed above, and who also says that the narrative regarding the "provocations of August 1949" has affected the historical memory of several generations of Albanians, and has thus become part of Albanian historiography. As for the Albanian book you shared, it doesn't provide any details, just the following:

Në vitin 1949 Greqia ndërmori provokacione të vazhdueshme kundër Shqipërisë. Ndër to, provokacioni më i rëndë ishte ai i 2 gushtit 1949 në sektorin e kufirit Bozhigrad-Bilisht, ku njësi të ushtrisë monarkiste greke u futën në territorin shqiptar. Luftimet vazhduan disa ditë , deri në tërheqjen e plotë të forcave greke. Pala greke e justifikoi këtë veprim, gjoja, me mbështetjen që Shqipëria u jepte forcave komuniste greke që vepronin në territorin grek.

The events that began on August 2 and lasted for several days, are known as Pyrsos I; the first phase of the operation. According to non-Albanian historiography, the aim of the Greek governmental forces was to carry out sporadic deceptive attacks in the area of Grammos (divided between Greece and Albania), in order to divert the attention of the Greek communist forces and let them think that the main attack was to happen there. Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Për arguments made above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.G ReDark (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original arguments of Demetrios for merge were correct, but it's also evident that in the last few days the article has been expanded to almost 20k. The topic fulfills WP:N criteria and publications about it seem to be increasing in recent years. The article about Operation Pyrsos is ~6k. A merge wouldn't work on a technical level but also in terms of content as there is enough material for a standalone article for the events on August 2-6 on the border. There is still difficulty in finding non-Albanian sources for events which cover the 1945-1990 period of Albania as there was little contact with the outside world and subjects like this one weren't part of historical research until a part of the archives of Socialist Albania was declassified. I think that the article in the next phase should include more sources which will reflect the "Greek version" of the events.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Those minor incidents occurred as part of Albania's support of the Greek communist guerrillas. There was even a Greek prisoner's centre located in southern Albania. I also wonder what makes 'radiokosovailire' a historical source (obviously an extremist site per its name). Alexikoua (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is actually getting ridiculous now. It seems certain editors here enjoy throwing around the term "extremist" for Albanian sources. 'Radiokosovailire' translates to 'Free/Independent Kosova Radio', how does that name denote extremism? When you talk about extremist sites, you think of sites that incite violence, terror and other forms of extremism, like ISIS recruitment websites, not 'Free/Independent Kosova Radio' hahahaha... Botushali (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need to follow wp:RS when we use sources to support our articles. This specific source doesn't meet neither wp:ACADEMIC nor wp:SECONDARY, not even wp:HISTRS.Alexikoua (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RadioKosovaelire is not the publisher, but a site which has republished an article by colonel Jorgo Qirici in Revista Ushtarake, the official scientific journal of the Albanian army. It obviously reflects the Albanian point of view about the events, which means that the article requires the Greek point of view as well. The fact that the article reflects a WP:POV doesn't make it less WP:RS because for military events the official narratives of the involved factions are necessary for writing relevant articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if a journal, especially a scientific one can ever publish a text without any supportive bibliography or a single inline reference. We have plenty of retired and active Colonels writing down their version of history and this doesn't make them necessary wp:RS like in this case.Alexikoua (talk)

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

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

Prashant Kakad

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG; created by IP editor who has made only a single edit; 2nd and 3rd edit on this page were made by the subject; this is a pure promotional page with no significant coverage about the subject in 3rd party independent sources; google search turns up only personal accounts and nothing substantial. Kiran_891 ^(TALK) 08:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Dance. Kiran_891 ^(TALK) 08:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No evidence of notability, plus the noted issues with autobiography/self-promotion. —C.Fred (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 13:32, 16 July 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 Solar Saros 120. There seems to be a rough consensus around this decision (since redirection is more or less supported by those who supported deletion); furthermore, the result is supported by the consensus forming at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Eclipse RfC. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of July 7, 2195

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

WP:2SOON：The eclipse is still 170 years away, and it's too early(HTTP 425) to create it. Q28 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Solar Saros 120. I don't think WP:TOOSOON applies here, because that applies to things that aren't notable yet, or that don't have enough information to be notable quite yet. This isn't that situation. It has sources and can easily be verified and does seem to be notable, it just happens to be far into the future. If something being far into the future disqualified it from inclusion then we couldn't have articles like Timeline of the far future (which is a featured list, so it's clearly a good article to have on Wikipedia). My issue is that there's no substance to the article, and everything listed can easily be included at Solar Saros 120 (in fact I think most of it already is). This article has to repeat what a solar eclipse is, other dates for other solar eclipses, and then explains what Solar Saros 120 in particular is just to pad it out the article, and even with that it's still just a sparse stub. When taking unique content into account, there's nothing there. I don't see how it could be improved but maybe it could, As it is, however, it's ripe for a redirect. - Aoidh (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it is not possible to verify that a future event will in fact happen in any encyclopedic way. Especially this far into the future. This is a prediction. Predictions, even done by NASA can be and are frequently wrong. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any example of modern astronomy incorrectly predicting a solar eclipse? As far as I can tell, the timing of eclipses is calculated with extremely high precision (to within minutes, even for events hundreds of years away). jp×g 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Future eclipses are calculated and their expected occurrence is not mere speculation. Eclipses have been accurately predicted prior to the invention of computers; we can now predict eclipses somewhat accurately for many thousands of years (well within the system's Lyapunov time, but that deals with planetary dynamics more generally), and NASA sees fit to publish calculations up to 3000 AD [9]. Of course, however, shorter-term predictions are more accurate, and inaccuracies on a timescale of 200 years would concern precise details of the path and timing, not whether the eclipse will occur. This article explains everything quite nicely. ComplexRational (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:2SOON--way, waaaay too soon. TH1980 (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because WP:TOOSOON does not apply, as well-argued by Aoidh. It would only be appropriate to delete if there is another argument other than TOOSOON, which the nomination did not provide. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there's no reason to oversell the uncertainty in predictions of well-grounded celestial mechanics. There might be an argument for presenting our information about predicted eclipses in a different way, but that's not a question this particular forum is designed or equipped to resolve. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable based on a lack of significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to respective Saros article, as for the other nominated far-future eclipses. Content is risible for a standalone article, with no expectation of subject-specific expansion. This is list material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per what I said at the other nominations. This is not WP:CRYSTAL — it's a mathematically determined certainty of physical reality based on thousands of years of astronomy (by which nearly all human civilizations have considered eclipses to be notable events of great significance and portent). The fact that it hasn't happened yet is immaterial; current models are able to accurately antedict observations from thousands of years ago. Per XOR'easter, there may be a case for putting this information into a list, but it doesn't really seem worth the effort. Yes, a list is easier to create, but since articles have already been created, there is zero effort saved by performing the additional work of a merge for uncontroversial articles. jp×g 20:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Solar Saros 120 per what I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191. I'd suggest deletions of this type be discussed in a broader context. I created a (perhaps poorly presented) RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events), but the treatment of eclipses should be more uniform. Ovinus (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solar Saros 120. Other than the fact that this is the last solar eclipse of the cycle, there's nothing particularly extraordinary about this future solar eclipse, and no coverage independent of the broader topic. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Solar Saros 120 per above comments. There's no disputing the accuracy of the calculation, so WP:TOOSOON may not apply and WP:CRYSTAL certainly does not apply, but the question is whether significant coverage exists. Considering that this is a partial eclipse, and that most sources highlight either routine calculation or that it's the last eclipse of the Saros cycle, I'm not sure that such coverage exists to justify a standalone article. ComplexRational (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JPxG. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing can be said about this beyond that it is likely to happen. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 16 July 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!} 01:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Bhattacharyya

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

Only known for two reality shows. Not much sources are available about her without the competitive shows. Shinnosuke15, 07:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Women, and Music. Shinnosuke15, 07:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and looks like more of promotion 45.64.208.58 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:CITEKILL also. DoraShin15, 09:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 14:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 16 July 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 6 Youth Movement Democratic Front

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

These two pages are essentially WP:CONTENTFORKs of April 6 Youth Movement with plagiarism wedged in. Democratic Front is copied straight from Youth Movement with the first half of the section '#Anti-Protest law campaign' lifted straight from here (and I'm certain it's from this place because the first edit to the page even links it! It just says "Page text" randomly!) Copyvio! Democratic Front Alexandria (DFA) fares little better. It may have copied another source, but I'm not certain. Though I am certain that it was copied from Youth Movement back in the day, and Youth Movement expanded significantly.

The author of Democratic Front was blocked 3 days after the editor wrote the article (username policy); DFA's author has not. DFA's author suspiciously has written the article on Yasser Shamsaldin Mohamad, the "founder" of DFA. My guess is that these cases were to boost exposure. Nothing has been done to the articles since. TL;DR: content fork and plagiarism. SWinxy (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Egypt. SWinxy (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 16 July 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 Buck Creek Township, Hancock County, Indiana. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Acres, Indiana

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

A little difficult to sort, especially since Walmart is dropping a complex on the corner, the main building of which is almost a kilometer long. But this book states that "Pleasant Acres is a nondescript farm suburb east of Indianapolis." If that isn't a statement of non-notability, I don't know what is. Mangoe (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Buck Creek Township, Hancock County, Indiana - No evidence of legal recognition (i.e., incorporation) and the place is obviously an unincorporated community. No sigcov so no WP:GNG pass. GNIS-spam. The census listing appears to be just for the FIPs code and anyway is not Sigcov. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 18 July 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!} 04:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gbededo

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

Subject fails GNG and ANYBIO. The sources are either related to the subject or self-published, ROUTINE, or churnalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the indepdent, reliable 3rd party sources that need to be the backbone of any well written article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 20 July 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!} 03:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Ninja (webcomic)

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

Sourced entirely to the strip itself. No better sources found in a WP:BEFORE, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I'm actually finding surprisingly a lot here. Besides the Star Phoenix article cited in the article, there's this Gizmodo listicle, this CBC article, and this ComicsAlliance listicle. I recognize that two of those are pretty weak though (especially the CA one is written in a bloggy style), but I believe it is sufficient to write a solid article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have added some sources, primarily around the Vine series and later migration to Toonstar. Article could probably do with a rewrite refocusing on the Vine series and reducing cruft about the web cartoon going into/out of hiatus, getting redirected, etc. Artw (talk) 15:21, 17 July 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!} 03:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmbi Industries

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

Fails WP:NCORP, and has been moved to and from the draftspace multiple times (see Draft:Emmbi Industries and Draft:Emmbi Industries 2).

Sources 1 to 10 are all either links to stock databases or trivial coverage (one-sentence mentions), none of which offer the significant coverage required to demonstrate notability. Source 11 is in-depth, but focuses on the company's subsidiary. 14 is only a short article on a brand ambassador. 15, 16, and 17 are award listings, which are not in-depth coverage on their own.

The article creator has only written about this subject, so there may also be WP:COI or WP:UPE involved. This article should either be deleted or at least remain in the draftspace until proper notability is demonstrated. Yeeno (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Yeeno (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All mentions are trivial as outlined in WP:ORG. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:49, 17 July 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!} 03:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamoto Fenika

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is not even remotely close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 21 July 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!} 03:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaia Fealofi

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:31, 17 July 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!} 02:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. and Mrs. Chinnathirai (Season 4)

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

fails WP:GNG lacks of sources. HurricaneEdgar 02:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources, same article as the draft by the same user I declined just moments ago. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article creator (currently on 31 hr block for disruptive edits) refuses to develop articles in draft, and this empty shell is nowhere near ready for main space. The main article Mr. And Mrs. Chinnathirai is itself barely notable per WP:NTV. We could draftify if some reliable sources could be found in Tamil to establish WP:GNG - I can't find any in English. Storchy (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Needs WP:RS. Deepika o (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG. Gusfriend (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 16 July 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. Article has been improved, nominator has withdrawn, and the delete !votes have changed their opinions (i.e. WP:HEY has been met). NPASR if someone still feels that this is a page that should be deleted in order to start a fresh discussion on the live page. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Shankar

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

No significant parts in movies, fails WP:NACTOR also no reliable secondary sources found so also fails WP:GNG Hughesdarren (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Given the massive improvements made by @DareshMohan: including a fair list of reliable independent sources, I feel that the article now meets all the notability requirements. Thankyou everyone for input, I really thought this one was a non-brainer delete. Well done DareshMohan on your work on saving it. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note while you are allowed to change your mind, with this many delete !votes it cannot be withdrawn and closed unless the other participants also change their minds. Primefac (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, though, a courtesy ping @HurricaneEdgar, Robert McClenon, Deepika o, and Umakant Bhalerao is probably in order. Primefac (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks of source also fails WP:Notability. HurricaneEdgar 02:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, as of 0643 GMT, 16 July. References are required for verifiability of all articles, and special requirements apply to biographies of living persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Lacks sources. Deepika o (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per all of the above.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Playing notable roles of late. The current sourcing is good and includes a BBC interview. `DareshMohan (talk)
Weak Keep, having not checked the references, but verified that there are what look like adequate references. This appears to be a Heymann case. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, the subject appears to satisfy WP:NACTOR. 149.36.19.74 (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my note above. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet WP:GNG due to some improving the article. HurricaneEdgar 09:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article expanded with more sources. Deepika o (talk) 09:17, 17 July 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 Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naganatha Pillayar Temple, Thanjavur

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

Notability has not been established in this article. If it can be established, I will withdraw the nomination. KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples. There are other similar temple articles too (e.g. Thanjavur Sankaranarayanar Temple and Kaliamman Temple, Thanjavur), which don't have much information (essentially just a deity name). Instead that information can be added to Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples and it could be made into a good list article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanakkam, MPGuy2824. I agree with you. (1) Will you send me a model for good list article? Based on that I will change. Or (2) I wish to bring all Vinayaka temples in one head Thanjavur Vellai Vinayakar Temple. Under the title Thanjavur Vellai Vinayakar temple with a sub title other Vinahaka temples under Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples other Vinayaka temples would be added. (3) For the long articles the model would be as under: ===Brihadisvara Temple, Thanjavur=== . Option (2) is for small articles mingling and Option (3) is for big articles. In case if I understood, the model for good list as opined by you I will follow it. Regards.--B Jambulingam (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at some of the lists in Wikipedia:Featured lists. To choose a specific example, you could see List of medieval churches on Gotland. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanakkam, MPGuy2824. I will bring all Vinayaka temples (having less information) into one place. Likewise, I will apply this method to other articles also. So that articles with less information could be deleted later. --B Jambulingam (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanakkam, KSAWikipedian. As the information pertaining to this article is added with Thanjavur Vellai Vinayakar Temple, the main article Naganatha Pillayar Temple, Thanjavur may be deleted. In due course I will add the smaller article/article with minimum information into a main article.--B Jambulingam (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanakkam, MPGuy2824. I prepared the list of Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples having separate columns for Shiva and other temples. Now I am adding Other Vinayaka temples in Thanjavur Vellai Vinayakar Temple. --B Jambulingam (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples: the group which this temple is a part of. Cant find anything that makes it notable individually. Venkat TL (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. There's passing mentions probably (?) 1, 2 per Google search, but GNG is definitely not met. So merging/redirecting to Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples would probably be fine. VickKiang (talk) 05:50, 17 July 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. I beg people to please review Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I have discounted the following genres of comments: "this article is useful", "someone needs to maintain this information", "We have an article on these local elections", and "This other AfD binds this one". Once I did that, the clear consensus is to delete this article. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Chorley Borough Council election

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. I wasn't sure what to do with (ones like) this one and opened a discussion at NPP and there were mixed thoughts/ no clear answer there. Accordingly, I would like to request a thorough large-participation review as the results this might set a direction or provide guidance. This is about a 1996 election in an area with approx 107,000 residents. It consists about 99% election results data with the other 1% being a few intro sentences. There is nothing unusual about the election. Wp:not is not explicit on this but in a few places seems to preclude this type of article. There was doubtless some local coverage. Saying that "presumed local coverage" alone should green-light it would mean that there probably I'd guess about 100,000,000 stats-only local election articles that could be green lighted. I believe there is no applicable ~~SNG, nor~~ precedent documented in wp:outcomes. The editor appears to be in the process of creating separate article for each election / year for this borough. Thanks in advance for your thorough review of this. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken, there is an SNG which is Wikipedia:Notability (events). IMO it pretty clearly fails that, but being an SNG, that still leaves the overall wp:notability question open. North8000 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm replying as a comment because I am treating this as a general review of this sort of article, rather than a typical AfD. I am convinced we should have articles only on notable local elections. To be notable, a local election would have been extraordinary: perhaps legal issues arose that led to a change in the procedure of elections; perhaps there was a huge scandal associated with one of the candidates that aroused sustained interest in the national press; perhaps the election was the straw that broke the camel's back, and toppled a government. A measure of non-notable is that all we have are tables of how many people voted for each candidate, as in the present case. If there is nothing interesting to say about an election, beyond bald statistics, then it does not belong in Wikipedia, which is not a database of statistics. Incidentally, I think this is a general trend in Wikipedia. For example, we have older articles on sportspeople recorded as competing in the Olympics, which we're now deleting as we know nothing more about them, and they didn't win a medal. The day will, I'm sure arrive where we stop focussing on the medal, and instead focus on the coverage: did anyone say anything interesting about this subject? In the case of local elections, we need more than the local newspapers' temporary interest over a few weeks. Elemimele (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is possible for an election to be notable. Elections for executives, upper chambers in a bicameral legislature are notable. Election to a lower chambers in a bicameral legislators or for state/provincial legislatures may be grouped together. Other elections, including local elections, may be notable when there are secondary and retrospective sources that illustrate how the election as noteworthy (perhaps for some of the same reasons described by Elemimele) or is the first election for a president, prime minister, or similar political figure, where the election article is a spinoff. In any case, the article should consist of significant prose that describes the context and outcome(s) of the election. --Enos733 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. This notability guideline for events reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about past, current, and breaking news events should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. Among the criteria:

"Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect."

"Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)."

"Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event."

"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."

"In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine. "

The election 1) does not have enduring historical significance, 2) does not have widespread impact, 3) has limited scope of coverage, 4) is routine.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ IMO, per the normal decision making process there are two different guidelines ( Wp:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (events) ) plus one policy ( WP:not ) taken into consideration. Since the routine description wiki-conversations is not couched in those terms, in the end I think such needs to be expressed as clear-cut SNG decision and a calibrated WP:GNG decision. I would agree some of the highest level / largest scale/ inherently highest impact elections per the criteria/examples set by @Enos733: are inherently notable enough to be eligible for an SNG type "by-pass"/ addition to the SNG. Most of the other ~100 million elections are not one of those. There is an SNG which covers this ( Wikipedia:Notability (events) )and IMO this article and similar ones clearly fail it. This still leaves open the possibility of passing via WP:GNG. IMO, the clear failure under the SNG also provides some guidance of or reinforcement for a thorough interpretation of sourcing required for GNG. Specifically, requiring in-depth coverage of the titled topic which is not just routine short-term election coverage including that only of individual races within it. This article (and others like it) do not have that. Further, the generation of a near "stats-only" article with no such sourcing and no "non-stats" material (not counting a perfunctory Wiki-editor-generated into sentence and Wiki-editor-generated unsourced summary) is a further indicator that such is unlikely to exist. Finally, further reinforcement comes from at least two places in WP:Not including, by being a near "stats only" article, falling far short of "mostly prose". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you !vote on your own AfD? Elli (talk | contribs) 19:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In seeking a broader discussion on an open question rather than a particular outcome) I wanted to put a thorough and neutral description in the nomination and not make the case for deletion in the nomination. And so I put my input, including analysis and resultant rationale elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am rather concerned that this AfD has apparently taken place without any involvement by participants in either Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom or Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, both of which regard the very similar 1998 Burnley Borough Council election article as being within their scope. The latter article is certainly currently somewhat more informative and better cited than this one - but the topics of two articles are very similar (Burnley is only a few miles from Chorley, and the councils themselves are generally comparable), and it is almost certain that the better sourcing of the Burnley article is due to more competent searches for (and use of) reliable sources rather than any inherent differences in the quality of those sources. (Indeed, while I don't have the expertise to get at such sources myself in any reasonable time, I would reckon that all the cited sources for the 1998 Burnley election would have almost precisely equivalent ones, from the same publications, for the 1996 Chorley one.) I would therefore strongly urge that the two projects are informed of this AfD, and that the AfD should be held open for a few more days for them to be given the chance to make their own assessments of this article and respond. PWilkinson (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is not about reliable sources. The concern is the election 1) does not have enduring historical significance, 2) does not have widespread impact, 3) has limited scope of coverage, 4) is routine. Sources need to be found that contradicts at least one of those points for the election to be notable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd echo what rsjaffe said. I'd also add that the types of attributes described typically would end up with substantial prose-type coverage of those type of things. And so an article lacking that or being a 98% "stats only" article can tend to be an indicator of that. When I opened this I requested a thorough review / discussion. I'd like it help open long enough for that to occur. So please keep this open until at least July 1. But I'd like sincere discussion on the general issues mentioned, not just hitting an area likely to come up with "keep" votes and I'm concerned that people focused on the particular geographical area involved might be that. I was hoping for a discussion of this type of thing in general which might help provide general guidance. Putting a note at a notability page might also be good....I think I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This doesn't look like a good way to structure this information to me, and I think it should probably be reduced to a summary paragraph in the parent article (which would require reorganizing that article somewhat). The level of detail here is useless to the reader without further context. There is also the sourcing issue, but even if the current primary source for the election stats were replaced or supplemented by an independent secondary source, it wouldn't really change things. If there were, hypothetically, good local sources giving context and analysis (or ideally historical analysis) of the election, such as could support an article, then the fact that those sources are local should not matter. Beyond that, I don't think AFD is a good place to have this discussion, because (a) it is highly unlikely to attract a representative cross-section of knowledgeable editors, and (b) AFD is by nature a zero-sum discussion (see !votes above), but this seems like an issue that could be brought to a positive-sum solution through ordinary processes of editing and consensus. -- Visviva (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Local scope matters for notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My own experience of this type of just stats UK local council election article was that I moved some to draft space for improvement and requested deletion of the redirects (before I got page mover rights). The over enthusiastic admin deleted the articles themselves as G13 even though they'd just gone to draft - he was later de-admined for other issues and retired. Later the creator of the articles requested their un-deletion and moved them back to mainspace. I'd had enough of them by then, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this AFD as there is concern that interested editors are unaware of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has become one of the few remaining sources for detailed local election results, some from the very beginning of Wikia itself. They are honest, true, accurate, and encyclopaedic. They've survived AfDs before on the basis of being records of electoral results and should do so again. doktorb _words^deeds 17:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. My main goal here is to try to "sort this out", and so my following post is towards that end rather than for a particular outcome. Well, Wikipedia is only supposed to contain information that is published elsewhere. Perhaps you meant "on line" or "easily searchable on line". But that argument would seem to be an argument for a complete transformation of Wikipedia. A quick ballpark guess is that there have been about 100,000,000 governmental elections. Right now having GNG type coverage is the additional criteria to screen them. With a "stats only" article condition being perhaps a flag for that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the outcome should be the same as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 St Albans City and District Council election, which was open at the same time. Any apparent difference in consensus is likely to be because that one was listed under England deletions whereas this was not, the tendency for later votes to follow the earlier ones as editors like to keep their AFD stats looking good, and the nonsense about 100,000,000 articles. Even assuming we had the results of similar numbers of elections around the world, that many would mean either going back a few millennia, or separate articles for each parish council election (unnecessary even if they were notable, as they are usually only 1, 2 or 3 wards) or equivalent. Chorley borough elections only go back to the 1970s for the current district (and the 1880s for the former municipal borough, which was smaller). I think that non-metropolitan district/borough elections are an appropriate level of coverage, and that is what consensus has always been. 82.132.186.25 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick guess of 100,000,000 elections is plausible, not nonsense.Every governmental entity that has elections for every year in history could easily hit 100,000,000 elections. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The St Albans AfD was closed after only two comments, so it's not an exhaustive opinion of WP editors. It shouldn't set a precedent that can never be overturned. I am worried by this. There are over 200 elections of this size every year in the UK alone, and because WP is a global encyclopaedia, we have to consider how many similar elections take place across other countries that expect coverage here: the US (obviously), Canada, India etc. etc.; we will be adding thousands of articles a year, most of which contain nothing but statistics that could easily be found elsewhere. Yes, there will be press coverage - there always is for an election - but there is no lasting interest, and if all we report is the results, then we are merely mirroring primary data as laundered through a secondary source, rather than truly secondary-sourced material. There is no doubt the information ought to be available to the public, but it's not encyclopaedia stuff. Elemimele (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In promoting this as an example article and requesting thorough debate, I think that there could be two useful outcomes. One is that referring to to this AFD might be useful taken in the context of it being for the particulars of this election and the particulars of what is and isn't in the article and its sources. The second is that if we can get a very thorough close which summarizes the discussion, I think that that would also be very useful. And so I'd like to request such a thorough close. What this would NOT be is using the a mere "keep" or "delete" result as a blanket indicator for all election articles. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the criteria for EVENTCRIT. It does not have widespread (national or international) impact. These types of local elections are WP:ROUTINE and not really newsworthy or important, except to a relatively small local population. Fails GNG by lacking a sufficient amount reliable sources. A statistical chart or official government publications and notices are not independent reliable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that to really deal with these, we need to recognize that dealing with these intelligently needs to acknowledge assessing by multiple considerations combined, the unacknowledged way that Wikipedia actually operates. Another way to say it is about wp:notability, but also taking into account the degree of compliance with wp:not which is a measure of the degree of enclyclopedicness. A "stats only" article means that wp:not weighs in against this, but not to the extent of clearly precluding it based solely on wp:not. "Stats only" also influences a GNG evaluation. And also acknowledge that the scale and prominence itself also matters. Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works acknowledges this combination of considerations. So on the "prominence/scale" aspect, this comes in low-medium...an entity with ~107,000 people and not state or national level (thus no support from any SNG, and wp:events weighing in against it), "stats only" means that wp:not weighs in against if not so strong to specifically forbid it based solely on wp:not. WP:GNG weighs in against it, although if it weren't for those other considerations we might bend the GNG rules a bit. IMO, my "delete" probably considered this to be just below the "keep" threshold via combined consideration of all of these factors, which (if you need to oversimplify it) could also be called a wp:notability decision. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ultimately, this comes down to Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chorley Borough Council elections. This is a comment on this article, which can also serve as a guideline for all such articles. Wikipedia is not the place that people are going to go to for a borough by borough recap of a council election. The net result - winner or loser - should go in the election history section of the main article. I looked at Chorley Borough Council elections and sadly it's just a list of links, but those should be replaced with the summary results from the annual elections. Source with a link to the more detailed tallies on the municipal sites. That will cut down the number of these these articles by a good factor. And it reflects a better understanding of how people use Wikipedia. And it's easier to keep up the info. We won't create the expectation for future readers that this info will be here for every election, since it more than likely won't be. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. Perhaps we need to establish specific guidance on what elections should be included, but I don't see this occurrance of strictly local significance as being among them. BD2412 T 17:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it fails WP:EVENTCRIT and GNG. Additionally, I notice some of the "keep" votes are making arguments that have nothing to do with this subject's notability (complaints about padding AfD stats, etc.). Those should probably be disregarded. Wes sideman (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural ~~keep~~ close as wrong venue. North8000 is trying to establish general guidelines for local elections with an AFD. AFDs should be about one specific article, not about policy principles. This discussion has become hopelessly entangled with the general principle. A Request for Comment would be more appropriate, or a proposal made at Village Pump. This could affect a very large number of articles; Chorley Borough Council elections shows that every election since 1994 has its own page, and they are all similar to this one. Other councils such as Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council elections are similar. It would be entirely wrong to delete them all piecemeal on the basis of one AfD. SpinningSpark 14:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A single AFD would have no such reach, and I never said otherwise. But a thorough discussion on a real edge-case example would be useful. North8000 (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would because it would set a precedent that can be referred to in later AfDs. You said as much in your nom with "the results this might set a direction or provide guidance". The inevitable result of a delete here would be a mass nomination of thousands of articles with similar structure/content for UK elections alone. SpinningSpark 10:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: You view the potential impact of this AFD to be much larger than I do. And BTW it's much more plausible to take my statement that you quoted in it's context (including me saying that i wasn't concerned about the overall result) and intended meaning. Which is that the particulars of an in-depth conversation could be helpful for future discussions. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet, but very recent ongoing discussion, which may be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no long-term significance, no coverage beyond the local, probably no significant coverage in independent reliable sources at all. If it isn't possible to write an article on a subject that isn't just decontextualised data, we shouldn't have an article on that subject. Merging to Chorley Borough Council elections isn't a viable solution because that article has the same problems as all the articles on individual elections; summarising all the election results in the grandparent article Borough of Chorley might be the most sensible option, but deleting this needn't preclude that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To myself and to many people interested in elections, Wikipedia is an invaluable historical source of information that is no longer available from other sources such as the council websites. The loss of pages such as this would hinder research into historical trends in different authorities and for different parties. Legalistic procedural arguments are besides the point, the only relevant criteria is whether an article is useful. Peterl22 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to delete. It has been the long standing position that all principle authority elections are included. No one goes around deleting London Borough election results, for example. There are people who look at historical results for shire districts and often this information is not freely available from another source, particularly before around 2000. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilm1000 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – articles such as this one serve a useful function as a historical record which isn't available elsewhere on the internet. I'm open to having a more general discussion about the merits of having articles for individual council elections, but this should take place using a more visible mechanism such as a request for comment. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 St Albans City and District Council election. SpinningSpark 11:00, 20 July 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. This is a nuanced one, for much of the reasons HighKing and the nom noted and the rescope that happened during this discussion. It appears that the McBrides are intricately tied to their businesss, which frequently happens with family businesses. The deletion !votes appear to be about the sisters, and in fact one says the company might be, which turns the vote itself into a not clear delete following the re-scope. This could be a no consensus with the outcome being the same, but my read is that this is more of a keep based on discussion. Star Mississippi 02:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin and Andréa McBride

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

This article has to sort out who and what it is. Is it a biography? (It's tagged as such) But if so, it is of two people. Is it a business? (It's tagged as such) If so, it's really not notable. The largest black owned female focused winery is really cheese paring here - and there's little notability on offer to pass WP:GNG let alone WP:NCORP. Is the coverage about a business or the sisters? Is the article about the business or the sisters? To which of these do we apply WP:GNG when paring the application of guidelines? The business confers no notability on the sisters. The sisters confer no notability on the business. Deletion is the simplest course - because notability here is lacking all round. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Wine, Business, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company might be notable, not sure why the pair of them get an article together. Oaktree b (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Natalie RicciNatalie 20:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move page to McBride Sisters Wine Company. Despite the rather confusing use of the term "cheese paring" above, this was an appropriate nomination given the state the article was in. As the nominator states, it was originally pushed to Mainspace, uncertain of whether it wanted to be a biography or an article about a business. It has now been rewritten as an article about the business, and will need to be moved to the company name if kept. I'm still in the process of editing and adding to the article, but at this point, I would suggest the following articles to establish notability: Fort Meyers News-Press and Fortune.com, with the Washington Post wine review as a possible third (per WP:NCORP, while product reviews need to be handled the care, the Washington Post wine columnist arguably has a long and established history of independence). (The two latter articles are also available via the Wikipedia Library.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable based on sources. The fact an article might need to be renamed is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to move it to the correct title with appropriate redirects. valereee (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move page to McBride Sisters Wine Company, company is notable and article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this AfD is based on the topic being a company, I'd !vote to Delete since none of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. But this is also one of those topic where the *people* who are involved in the company, taken together with the company and its achievements, etc, does appear to make the entire package together notable. But in my opinion, the sisters themselves have several articles written about them (which perhaps also mention their company) and would meet the criteria of other notability guidelines - on that basis I'd !vote to Keep. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, this DOES become interesting. The article has now been rewritten to focus on the BUSINESS and not the sisters. As such, it should now be reviewed as needing to pass WP:NCORP - although HighKing makes the point that the sisters are perhaps to be considered notable but the business not - do we now have a notable business in McBride Sisters Wine Company per Cielquiparle??? That does at least partly solve the identity conundrum I outlined in the nomination, but now we have Delete votes and Keep votes with a mix of reasons! Three Delete votes including my nomination say the company is not notable. One delete vote says the company may be notable but the sisters are not. Three Keep votes say the company is notable and the title of the article needs to change. Although my understanding is an AfD would not normally be relisted three times, this one has sort of changed course halfway through and may be eligible for another attempt to reach consensus based, this time, on WP:NCORP??? Not yer average AfD, for sure! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just reading through your recent comments have caused me to have a headache. I almost think this AFD should be closed and restarted over if the article has substantially changed in its focus and sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  If so, the article would need to be "moved" too, before any relisting, if there really is appetite for such a relisting. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Could we close it as 'Move to McBride Sisters Wine Company', Liz??? PS: Sorry for headache! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I think it is generally helpful for editors to improve articles under discussion at AFD but sometimes they can change so much that the original reason for deletion is no longer applicable. I'm leaving this one for another admin to review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added source and new section. In light of more recent comments, I added a new section on "Business history" and more importantly, a major source that was missing previously. It is this article in Wine Spectator, which is tempting to discount at first because it includes a Q&A interview with the sisters. However, the Q&A interview is preceded by four paragraphs about the history of the business, written by MaryAnn Worobiec who is a senior reviews editor for California and New Zealand wines. Unlike all the other articles, Wine Spectator includes the most precise explanation of how the "largest Black-owned wine company" claim can be verified (by volume, per Nielsen statistics on number of cases shipped to retail outlets). It is also very precise about how exactly the Sisters' business grew from a small importer to a partner of Diageo and then independent. I understand that "trade" publications are generally regarded with caution, but in this case, I think you could argue that Wine Spectator wouldn't easily be swayed by vendor marketing – and indeed, even the Washington Post wine critic flags Wine Spectator as an authoritative source. In total, together with the articles flagged previously, I think there is enough coverage to keep this article about the largest Black-owned wine company in the United States, which has a human interest founding story that has also gained significant coverage in the media (even when specifically excluding publications such as Essence which make it clear that McBride Sisters has advertised with them). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 20 July 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) Femke (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

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

Zero sources found in a WP:BEFORE. Google News gave only a single listicle from an unreliable looking site. Google Books gave only print versions of the strip. Consensus is that Web Cartoonist's Choice Award is not notable in the absence of other sources, and that seems to be the case here too. Whether there are sources should be weighed far more heavily than whether it won a supposedly notable award. All previous AFDs were from 2005-06 when the guidelines weren't as set as they are now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did you happen to Google the name of the article as part of your WP:BEFORE? Because I just did and I’m seeing articles by Comics Beat[10], Comics Alliance[11] and Wired[12] and I am wondering how you came up empty. Artw (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those all appear to be self published blogs. What journalistic merit do they have? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Speedy Keep, obviously. Artw (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Articles such as those cited by Artw are reliable, independent, and substantial. HenryCrun15 (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Wired does have a blog section, but this is a regular journalistic culture column. The Beat is covered at WP:Webcomic sources. Comics Alliance is used very frequently, and Chris Sims seems to be a well-established critic. These three sources are adequate in my eye. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources noted above look reasonable, and it being published by Dark Horse provides some additional strength, IMO. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as just about meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Andrevan@ 21:27, 22 July 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!} 02:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Little Gamers

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

Zero sourcing found beyond the one 1up.com article which only talks about the strip for a paragraph. Only other source is an IGN placeholder listing for the comic's game adaptation. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – "Will Strip For Games" is a great little article, but besides that, you're right, there's no sources to work from. These two might also be useful, [13] and [14], but it's not enough to establish notability. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:23, 16 July 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.