Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 29	July 31 >

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Czeschin

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

Non-notable athlete and reality television contestant. It's my understanding that simply competing at the Olympics is insufficient to establish notability. This athlete did not medal in his event. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and California. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding some coverage, for example [1] and [2]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In fact, he came into the event as favorite, and as a result received a fair bit of coverage, e.g. Extreme!: The Ultimate Guide to Action Sports (Triumph Books, 2002), pp. 44-45. St Anselm (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom is right that being an Olympian in itself is no longer notable, but this chap passes WP:GNG per the above sources and [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG per above sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:22, 31 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. czar 04:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PsiQuantum

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

Article about a company that lacks appropriate sourcing to meet the relevant guideline, WP:NCORP. The sources aren't independent in WP:ORGIND sense, as they are mostly fundraising announcemnets that provide no independent "opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." ~Styyx^Talk? 23:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources do appear to have some investigation that is independent, in WSJ and the Telegraph. Andrevan@ 23:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources only rely on quotes and announcements made by PsiQ or the firm that funded them: "PsiQuantum has secured X, PsiQuantum hopes Y", which isn't independent content. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forbes has ample coverage of them in an "Editors' Pick" article at [7]. Other significant coverage of their activities can be found at https://venturebeat.com/2021/05/05/globalfoundries-and-psiquantum-partner-on-full-scale-quantum-computerm-computer/ and I see other search results to sort through. Dream Focus 11:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solely significant coverage isn't enough to make a company notable. The latter link is indeed about what they do, but it isn't independent content (as required by NCORP), because they are telling what they do, not to mention that the source reads like a press release (which also can't be used to establish notability). Now, I can't access the Forbes source because it's paywalled, but looking at the title, I doubt any independent content will turn up, and even if it magically does, it's still only one source (though I've asked for an archive at Wikipedia:Discord). Please don't go through the "but it meets the GNG" route, because WP:SNG (literally the section under GNG) says that companies still need to meet the strict source guidelines that are on NCORP. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes link has no paywall for that article. I just clicked it and its still working fine. Significant coverage in a reliable source. And Wikipedia:Notability clearly states you have to pass either the general notability guidelines or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. Dream Focus 09:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're saying that NCORP is useless. xD I still can't access the Forbes source: I can see it for 5 seconds before I get a membership notification blocking the whole screen which I can't click away. Your above response makes it clear there isn't any independent content anyway, and I can actually see that the source is written by contributors, which also puts its reliability in doubt too.

Coming back to this GNG/SNG thing, again, per WP:SNG, subject-specific guidelines in some cases "help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written". They "can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies". GNG requires reliable, independent and significant coverage. This company doesn't meet the GNG, because the available sourcing isn't considered to be independent for such subjects (WP:ORGIND). ~Styyx^Talk? 15:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Forbes article noted above is not by Forbes staff, but by contributors which re not held to editorial oversight, and so is not really a reliable source. The Venturebaeat article noted above is a rehashed press release. This leaves only the original 3 sources in the article. The Telegraph is behind a pay wall, but given the other two, are weak sources for establishing notability, even if the Telegraph aticle is a very good source, on aggregate depth of ceverage is just not there. -- Whpq (talk) 12:35, 29 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!} 23:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to meet the relevant standard. Maybe they'll be wiki-notable someday, maybe not. Right now, they're not. XOR'easter (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. We have articles based on PR and announcements and such but nothing containing original/independent opinion/fact checking/analysis. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Ayn Varszegi

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

This artist does not meet WP criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The article sourcing consists of churnalism from human interest listicles, user-submitted content, or her own statements about her technique. A BEFORE search failed to reveal any art historical or critical reviews or analysis, no representation in significant exhibitions, nor notable museum permanent collections. No SIGCOV in reliable sources independent of the artist. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding an reliable sources establishing notability as an artist. Looks like most of the references are promotional. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and my online search has also not found support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC nor WP:NARTIST. Beccaynr (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bratty Babies

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

Completely unsourced article about a television film, not making any serious claim to passing either WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. As always, films (whether for TV or theatrical) are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have pages on IMDb -- they need to have reliable source coverage about them in real media, establishing a reason why they would pass a notability criterion (notable film or television awards, critical analysis by professional film or television critics, etc.)
This literally just states that the film exists and cites absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy sourcing, but even after having searched all of Google, ProQuest and Newspapers.com, I just can't find any sources that would make a difference: I can only find television listings grids and glancing namechecks of its existence in broad overviews of Lisa Rinna's career, which isn't the kind of sourcing that's needed. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 16 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!} 23:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has not a single reference, film does not appear to have been the in-depth discussion by any independent reliable published sources. A loose necktie (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sourcing under the title or its Canadian alternate. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - can't find much at all about this. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:08, 31 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Mavroudeas

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

An apparent autobiography which I'm not convinced passes WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NBIO. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Greece. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I didn't find evidence of passing WP:PROF. He has one authored book, The Limits of Regulation: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Development, and one edited volume, Greek Capitalism in Crisis: Marxist Analyses; I found a review of the edited volume [8], and one of the authored book [9], but I don't think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. I'd be willing to change my mind of more of each can be turned up, or if there is another reviewed book that I'm somehow missing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any coverage meeting WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF , WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeto Suzuki

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGYMNASTICS and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:19, 23 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!} 22:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNASTICS. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNASTICS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Phal Hooda

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF coverage is primary with just 1 ref that is just routine coverage. KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:07, 23 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!} 22:35, 30 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!} 06:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issa Fazli

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

The article does not seem to fulfil the requirement of Notability; The only part that I think comes close is the last section, which, however, is also not notable enough as per WP:EVENT Yet Another Internet User (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 23 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!} 22:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad story for sure, but the individual isn't notable as a paralegal. I find zero sources about them. Being transgender alone isn't enough for notability; while they struggled to get out of Pakistan, it's nothing terribly noteworthy for our purposes. They aren't notable as a writer, and rather run of the mill as a paralegal. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mylo Xyloto. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Up in Flames (song)

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

Non-notable release. The song received airplay in Italy to promote Coldplay Live 2012 but failed to rank in major charts, being limited to ultratip/download ones, which are basically like Billboard's Bubbling Under Hot 100. The band does not recognize its nature as a single either since "Hurts Like Heaven" was referred as the fifth and last single from Mylo Xyloto (2011). GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mylo Xyloto; fails WP:NSONG. AiGenly (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mylo Xyloto. I agree that the page fails WP:NSONG, but better to preserve the history in this case. Novemberjazz 22:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Javille Brooks

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No teams confer notability per se. What shows something is notable is coverage in reliable secondary sources that is significant about the person and is also independent of them. So an interview with someone published somewhere is not going to work, and if the publication is their employer it will not work. The exact point that publications become independent is sometimes disputed. People do not become notable because they play on a specific team, or are part of a competition, notability comes from coverage in reliable secondary sources for doing so. The first vote should not be "speedy keep" but procedural keep. However since the individual nominations are presneted individually, there is no reason to link them or to kill them just because they came quickly. If only we had a similar rule on speed of creating new articles. What probably happened in the nominator spent a lot of time reviewing available sources and then did all the nominations at once. This regularly happens. The only way we can justify keeping this article is if someone presents some in-depth coverage of this person in a sources that is independent, reliable and secondary, and we need more than one source, with the 2 sources independent of each other, to really keep the article. It makes sense to go through the football categories starting with one place, since to search for sources on people from a given place, you need to search at times in specific databases that cover that place, so systemically going through one place and then another makes sense. It allows you to build up your knowledge of where to search and not have a steep learning curve for each nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please back your opinion with policy guidelines
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - where is the significant coverage of him? I can find the usual trivial mentions in match reports and match day squad lists but nothing actually addressing Brooks directly and in detail. This therefore means that there is insufficient evidence of a passing of the required guidelines (i.e. WP:GNG and/or WP:SPORTBASIC). AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and so the copied and pasted keep arguments which make no reference to any Wikipedia guideline or policy should either be ignored completely or given less weight. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With limited adequate secondary sources this page and sources does not express the notability of the player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmateurGolfer01 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The community came to a consensus in March that caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comments by Zanoni and Das osmnezz which LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Murray (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT and Zanoni. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is no significant coverage in the article and none has been presented here. This is a modern day athlete from a English speaking country during the golden age of the internet so if there were sources they should be easily accessible. Alvaldi (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to a complete absence of significant coverage, Murray fails GNG. I disagree with the comment above saying that he is a young player, 34 is quite close to the average retirement age for a footballer. I therefore would also oppose draftifying as future notability seems doubtful. Comments relating to playing for a national team bear no relation to any Wikipedia policy or guideline and should be given less weight. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no consensus yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Less Unless: woul you mind explaining why is there no consensus, given that no one has given policy-based reasons for keeping? Avilich (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I relisted it as no consensus to give a chance to improve the article as there were such proposals. Best, Less Unless (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic lacks significant coverage, sourced only to databases. Avilich (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative divisions of the Donetsk People's Republic: The "keep" case is weak: it makes reference only to publications by this self-declared government. These are not sources that are independent from the subject of the article, and therefore not reliable sources. In the absence of such sources, WP:V mandates deletion. Sandstein 09:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions of the Luhansk People's Republic

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

This is an unreferenced fork of Luhansk People's Republic#Administrative divisions, which cites only unreliable sources; unencyclopedic; it’s like WP:SYNTH but not from reliable sources, giving the appearance of legitimacy to a fake country; borderline WP:HOAX. This information is not found in WP:reliable sources

This is a detailed expansion of a decree by the “authorities” in a Russian puppet state in Ukraine about territories they only partially control, which can be summed up in a single line in the main article: “the DNR authorities issued a decree rejecting Ukraine's 2020 reform of administrative divisions in Luhansk Oblast and only recognize the older division into raions: see Administrative divisions of Luhansk Oblast#Administrative divisions until 2020.”

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 03:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. ~~The state statistical service~~ A decree of the head of LNR is a reliable source for the administrative division of LNR - which currently controls the entirety of Luhansk oblast. The official Ukrainian administrative division is different and it should be, and is, described in another article. The fact that LNR isn't recognised is irrelevant, other unrecognised states have articles about their administrative divisions, e.g., Administrative divisions of Somaliland. Alaexis_¿question? 08:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A single primary source doesn’t indicate WP:Notability of the subject. You think the encyclopedia needs an article on every decree signed by Pasechnik? —Michael Z. 14:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is about the notability of the topic, I think that there is a precedent in Wikipedia that the administrative division of states, including unrecognised ones, is a notable topic.

By the way, multiple Russian secondary sources reported on this decree, e.g. Interfax. Alaexis_¿question? 17:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian sources are under a draconian régime of censorship, and are not reliable on Ukraine, the Russian war in Ukraine, or the Kremlin’s proxies there. If only Russian sources report on this, then that is not an indicator of WP:Notability (and perhaps a positive counter-indication), which requires sources “that are independent of the subject.” See Media freedom in Russia#Coverage on Ukraine. —Michael Z. 14:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as Per Alaexis Cryw 9 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:02, 15 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!} 23:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again, this article is both (1) useless and (2) fringe. It should be deleted promptly. The comparison to Somaliland is extremely offensive. Apples to oranges, people. Somaliland isn't a puppet state of some larger empire. It is a part of the ethnic-Somali realm that broke away due to a civil dispute with other Somalis in the rest of Somalia, essentially. There is no obvious foreign agent operating in Somaliland; their cause for independence is almost entirely domestic. The same cannot be said about Luhansk PR, which has been firmly under Russia's grip from the very beginning. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:36, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Square (Animation)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are no independent sources covering the subject in-depth. Cartoon Brew is only independent source and only has a passing mention. Slywriter (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Slywriter (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What independent sources are you looking for?

There are numerous independent references to the show in the links - including in the independent animation press - and including to the actual programme pages on international network pages. MilosMaccy (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MilosMaccy: Except for the Cartoon Brew article, which is a passing mention — less than a full sentence, in fact — the sources are all either press releases, simple program listings, or lists of nominees for a non-notable award which Circle Square didn't win. We need independent, in-depth coverage of this show — press releases, announcements, or database entries are insufficient. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm not an editor of Wiki so apologies if the page isn't tip top.

I will say the idea that the British Animation Awards are non-notable is certainly a subjective viewpoint and certainly not shared with the British animation industry!

Other references to the show include the

British Film Institute - who funded the show - through a rigorous selection process

https://www.bfi.org.uk/news/latest-young-audiences-content-fund-production-slate-announced

Cardiff Animation Festival - which featured a 90 minute masterclass on the show and a screening

https://www.cardiffanimation.com/circle-square-masterclass

https://www.cardiffanimation.com/circle-square-screening

with the funding of the primary screen training organistion here in the UK

https://www.screenskills.com/information-and-resources/masterclass/circle-square-masterclass-for-aspiring-animation-writers/

https://www.screenskills.com/news/british-animation-award-nominations-for-skills-fund-contributors/

The show doesn't have a big presence in the broadsheets because they rarely talk about kids TV, and the tens of thousands of kids who watch the show don't have social media accounts to talk about the show because - well - they're 4 years old. This page was meant as a resource for interested parents because as a parent I often use Wikipedia to look up information on other kids tv shows. It was mentioned in the Guardian a few years back during it's earlier phase of development in reference to British Tax breaks.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/apr/13/british-cartoon-industry-cbeebies-boom-tax-break

Animation Ireland

https://animationireland.com/kavaleer-productions-are-in-production-with-circle-square/

Animation Magazine

https://www.animationmagazine.net/tv/9-story-distribution-gets-hip-with-mcleod-bros-circle-square/ MilosMaccy (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources show existence, not notability which is when third parties take note of existence, usually in the form of reviews or othet extended coverage of the subject. Slywriter (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The Brothers McLeod article is also problematic and promotional. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:58, 15 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, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:34, 30 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric

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

Previous AfD was closed as Keep, which was overturned in Deletion Review.

I find the idea of keeping this article nothing short of scandalous. Fails WP:GNG, clear case of WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI. It was written by Łukaszyk himself, and is about his own PhD thesis. It was already deleted for these reasons back in 2009, after which Łukaszyk restored the article.

In the previous AfD Łukaszyk bombarded the page with irrelevant references, which were merely citing his paper. To satisfy WP:GNG a citation is not enough, one needs significant coverage, that addresses the topic directly and in detail. I managed to find a single arXiv pre-print [10] that gives it significant coverage. As it is not published, it doesn't count as a reliable source for the purposes of WP:GNG. Still, I find it interesting to remark that this pre-print dismisses the "Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric", which is not a metric, as a mistaken version of the well-known expected absolute difference, which is in fact a metric.

I think it's also important to mention that in the previous AfD all legitimate participants !voted Delete. All Keep !votes came from WP:SPAs or users that Łukaszyk WP:CANVASSED from the Polish Wikipedia. Łukaszyk has since then been blocked for sockpuppetry. Tercer (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tercer (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following the preprint linked above and the definitions in the articles, this appears to be a nonstandard name for a standard concept, mean absolute difference. I don't think we have adequate sourcing even for a redirect to that topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoo boy. The title is, as far as I could tell, citogenesis: the scattered mentions in the literature all came after the author named the Wikipedia page after himself (and his PhD advisor). Letting that stand wouldn't just violate guidelines or policies, but the ethos of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. None of the lengthy discussion of properties, examples, or "Physical interpretation" is justified by secondary sources. The Moyer–Landauer business is synthesis. Combine the bad title with the unsupported content, and there's nothing to save. XOR'easter (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true, there are citations from before the Wikipedia article was created, for example this. Olaf (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That reference is from 2010. As explained above, the article existed in 2009. As it happens, Google Scholar (which is generally very permissive in what it reports, since they try to scrape everything) finds no citations to Łukaszyk's "A new concept of probability metric and its applications in approximation of scattered data sets" from 2004, the year it was published, through 2008. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the potpourri of exciting reasons put forth by Tercer, David ~~Eddings~~ Eppstein, and XOR'easter. PianoDan (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eddings?? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I apologize for that. PianoDan (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone I feel the situation as deeply unfair. The article in question has been kept in the previous discussion. Then the author was blocked for 21 days for formal reasons, and the discussion was restarted with no new argument for the deletion, yet without any chance for the author to defend it. Without going into whether this ban was justified, everybody should have a chance to defend, and the discussion in the current form would be strongly biased. I believe the discussion should be postponed until the ban of the author is lifted, or there should be some other way offered to Guswan of taking part in the discussion. By proxy? By declared new account used for this discussion only? Olaf (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I confess myself unable to grasp what you mean by "formal reasons". Łukaszyk was blocked for violating the rules that the Wikipedia community has found, by experience, to be necessary for the site to function. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and also Wikipedia:Canvassing. All of your suggested options would amount to circumventing a block and violating Wikipedia's procedures once again. Per the policy on blocking, editors are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying") unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. New accounts that engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and that appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating. XOR'easter (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal of this discussion is to evaluate the case without any bias, you must allow the main advocate of each side to speak up, or the results are easy to predict but not necessarily accurate. In the real world even the convicted person has right to defend in other cases. If it's against the rules to allow Guswan to defend his article, the discussion should be postponed until the ban is lifted. Olaf (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "main advocate of each side". Anyone can make a case for or against the article on its merits. Łukaszyk is not on trial. We are simply trying to decide whether or not something he wrote belongs in an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So your decision will be biased and possibly inaccurate if it's made while the main source of the arguments for keeping the article is silenced. Olaf (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a "main source of arguments." The article should stand or fall on its own merits, based on the objective criteria of notability. It shouldn't require any one person to make the case for it, and if only one person is capable of effectively making that case, that's a pretty good sign that the article isn't really notable. PianoDan (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely because of WP:PROMO and WP:COI. I'm not unbiased; I've had several unsatisfactory interactions with the originator, the general theme of which has been a disregard of Wikipedia rules and incivility. My general impression is that this is part of a pattern of using Wikipedia as a media to publish stuff they originate, regardless of interest to the world (or Wikipedia) at large. Tarl N. (discuss) 13:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any self-promotion/COI aside, there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability is about the sourcing that currently exists. Because of this, I disregarded arguments of the form "sourcing will appear in the future." Maybe they will, but we do not have a crystall ball to know for sure. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Unity (Italy, 2022)

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

No reliable independent sources talk about this, and there is of course no extensive coverage about it. So this definitely does not meet the general notability guidelines. Yakme (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Yakme (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written and definitely encyclopedic article, started by User:Broncoviz, on a coalition of political parties in Italy. --Checco (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written? It's a total of 3-4 lines. Anyway, not justified by reliable sources nor by notability criteria. Yakme (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a list that will take part in the upcoming election in Italy. Although their meeting at the Chamber of the Deputies was followed only by Varese7Press, I think the list is relevant for the italian politics.--Broncoviz (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No crystal-balling on Wikipedia. The list still has not taken part to any election, nor filed candidates for any election. Yakme (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The news about this new coalition had been entered by myself into the pages of the member parties, but it seemed enough to me. The page is premature (like the pages about the other left-wing alliances born in recent days), a mention in the pages of the parties that are part of it seems to me sufficient at the moment. In my opinion, when the alliances are consolidated, there will be enough sources and they will present a list for the elections, it will be the right time to create the page. Creating a page on a newly formed alliance is too early, political agreements in Italy are too often aleatory. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG; WP:CRYSTAL applies. If this was an alliance between major parties, then it could potentially be kept even with limited sourcing. However, all 4 parties here are minor fringe parties, so we can't look past the dearth of sources. Curbon7 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is hardly a case of crystal balling. The establishment of this coalition of encyclopedic parties is a fact. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Broncoviz. Of course it is a short article for the moment, but most likely it will inevitably be expanded upon in due course.--Autospark (talk) 16:00, 18 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!} 23:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Out of four sources, three are primary and one is a local (city) newspaper. The article therefore lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and makes it not notable. Also, the alliance was created less than a month ago, so the voice suffers recentism. As alternative, I would consider to make the article a draft and publish it only when more secondary sources will be available. P1221 (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete as WP:TOOSOON, we don't (yet) have sufficient Independent references (independent also refers to the content not just corporate links) and all the content appears to originate from the topic organization. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:36, 30 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 and tag for improvements, as sending to draft space might just result in a CSD G13 deletion in six months. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scripophily

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

There exists few sources for its notability, only two websites (Investopedia and a scripophily association), and no sources whatsoever at the page itself (though there are external links). Also, the guidelines section smacks of a guide (as in NOTGUIDE). I recommend deletion, without prejudice to redirect (as it is a real concept) or rewrite. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, History, and Business. jp×g 03:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This is a real hobby that we should have an article about, but currently this article has no inline citations. There are sources out there to cite (see [11] and [12], for example). Let's send this to draftspace until the article is properly cited. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as above. This is a well-established hobby, but we need to re-work the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement -- This is legitimate article on a legitimate subject. I entirely agree that it needs a lot more references, but the appropriate remedy for such an article is to tag it for improvement, not to delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it is not well-sourced, I agree that this is a legitimate subject. I'm doubtful though about sending a 19 year old article to Draft space. That might just result in a CSD G13 deletion in six months. I think it'll will get more attention in main space and alerting relevant WikiProjects than being hidden away in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag – Meets notability guidelines per source searches. Then, place the {{Copy edit}} and {{Cleanup AfD}} templates atop the article, and notify WikiProject Numismatics at its talk page about the matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag per the arguments above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify : meets notability. Needs a rework from draftspace and can improve inline citation. Poppified ^talk 17:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 30 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 Marissa Lingen. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Lingen bibliography

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

this is nothing more than list cruft - we don't usually include massive bibliographies for authors who are of questionable notability much less those who's works have not received critical coverage - this is a list of basically everything she's ever touched even minor short stories on blogs which are self published among other things. I tried to clean it up in the main article and redirect it but it's not even clear waht works have received coverage, so i fail to see how this warrants a standalone list as this isn't a personal resume service nor should we be linking to everything she's ever touched. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject has a very long bibliography, and to avoid the length overwhelming the balance of the main article, a separate bibliography is more useful. See guidelines for Author bibliographies at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies Sunwin1960 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The whole of WP:BIB applies, not just how to format it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles and reviews are easy to find for this subject. Lightburst (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if the bibliography is removed from the author article: I have no strong view on whether it should be standalone, but it should remain somewhere in the encyclopedia: notable author, useful list. PamD 08:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant works can be covered in Marissa Lingen (for which my !vote is "keep" FWIW). MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant parts to Marissa Lingen. We're not a directory and this level of detail is not appropriate, and the Lingen article does not suffer from SIZE issues that merit a separate article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 10:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Marissa Lingen. I'm not convinced this list is suitably notable to meet WP:NLIST. There is no need for the entire list to be on the main article, but WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Marissa Lingen: per ATD-M. Agree that it should be a selective merge of the only non-trivial content. ––FormalDude talk 14:49, 22 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, Less Unless (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Does not meet WP:NLIST. The article Marissa Lingen would benefit from a selective merge. Femke (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 30 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~~ withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Closure updated per this discussion. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hill (cyclist)

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

~~Lacks significant, independent coverage~~ 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cycling. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is one significant, reliable, independent source here. St Anselm (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NCYC #5 as Tour of Thailand winner (2016). St Anselm (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCYC per above, and has been expanded greatly since the nomination. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:39, 31 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. No WP:NCORP-compliant sources have been provided. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmbi Industries

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

It had been bounced from Drafts to mainspace and was eventually up at AfD, as a result of which the article was soft-deleted due to minimal participation. It re-appeared again as a result of a request for undeletion where the article creator asserted it was a public company with good reliable citations. This topic doesn't meet NCORP and there is a lack of references which meet our criteria for notability of companies. See previous AfD for details of refs. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the week since the last deletion, nothing new to add to the notability. Still fails WP:ORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsjaffe (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My arguments from the previous AfD still stand, as the article has barely changed since then. If better sources do exist, as asserted on the article's talk page, then the article should be properly incubated in the draftspace and go through the Articles for Creation process. Yeeno (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its listed on both the stock exchanges of India and has received national awards, Seems to have pretty good coverage too. QueerEcofeminist🌈 15:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goth Angel Sinner

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

Fairly unremarkable release. Limited coverage does not satisfy WP:NALBUMS or WP:NSONGS. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lil Peep discography. Change to keep per found sources below —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this release has plenty of third party, significant/dedicated coverage out there:

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/lil-peep-goth-angel-sinner-ep/
https://www.altpress.com/lil-peep-goth-angel-sinner-ep/

Again this doesn't say much beyond the EP's release.

https://www.nme.com/news/music/listen-lil-peeps-latest-posthumous-ep-goth-angel-sinner-2563014

This is an unremarkable mention - it's not WP:SIGCOV

https://www.mtv.com/news/7q8s38/lil-peep-goth-angel-sinner-ep
https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/lil-peep-posthumous-ep-goth-angel-sinner-8541690/

Largely a passing mentiojn, not WP:SIGCOV

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lil-peep-goth-angel-sinner-ep-when-i-lie-video-906094/

All are reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. And there's more out there too. Pretty easily meets the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 and SBKSPP The problem is a lot of these sources cover the same information (from a Press-release), with the same quotes and speak of the existence of the EP but not enough information to satisfy significant coverage. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem as far as the GNG goes, and even if it was, there's at least 1 review, and 1 preview type source. There's enough. Sergecross73 msg me 23:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Sergecross. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lil Peep discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased songs recorded by Lil Peep

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

For full transparency, I removed a bulk of unsourced material here. Per WP:LEAK, this is not encyclopedic. Poorly sourced (if at all) and full of speculation. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you wish to delete an article, you send it to AFD. You don't erase almost all of it, then send it to AFD. I have restored what you removed. Dream Focus 15:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of the process - there's nowhere it says unsourced material can't be removed ahead of a deletion request but as you wish. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-removed the unsourced material. There's nothing wrong with removing unsourced material from a Wikipedia article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion banner says clearly "do not blank the page." Removing everything or near everything is not allowed. Wait for the AFD to run its course. Someone might be able to find sources for some of the things that need them. Dream Focus 17:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lil Peep discography. Doesn’t need to be a separate article. Tragic that he died when his career had barely begun but Wikipedia is not a speculative memorial fan-site. Dronebogus (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lil Peep discography. I agree with Dronebogus, this seems like the best idea. Dream Focus 22:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. Unreleased songs don't actually belong in a discography! Subject to all WP rules and guidelines being followed I would suggest that this could be moved to List of songs recorded by Lil Peep and expanded accordingly. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Richhoncho above. Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies, lists of unreleased songs are never included in Discography articles, at least not any of the good ones. If there is ever a list article called List of songs recorded by Lil Peep, which would have different requirements, those unreleased songs for which there is reliable info could be included. Unreleased songs for which there is nothing but speculation can be left at fansites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add that there is a precedent for this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased songs by Coldplay. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to also add that I can support the votes to redirect below. Do not merge. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lil Peep discography as WP:LISTCRUFT, do not merge or delete. I'm against a merger per above arguments. I believe unreleased songs intended to be part of various albums can be covered there rather than all of his unreleased material. SBKSPP (talk)
Redirect: nothing salvageable here —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Pascuzzi

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

Non-notable reality TV contestant (Top Chef: Portland). Placed 10/15. Only notable for that one appearance (WP:ONEEVENT). Wani (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to try Google, where you'll quickly see there's plenty of coverage about him, his TV appearances (Beat Bobby Flay, probably others), his multiple notable restaurants, etc., not to mention he was named Chef of the Year by Eater Portland. I'm not suggesting this one title makes him notable, but it is inaccurate for you to say coverage is limited to his Top Chef appearance, IMO. I'll let others decide the fate of this article, but the redirect serves a purpose so deleting the page altogether is unnecessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you include any of this additional information in the article? So, he has two credited appearances on TV, so I acknowledge WP:ONEEVENT doesn't technically stand, but I don't see how a single appearance on Beat Bobby Flay really changes things. "Probably others" is obviously vague. His restaurants have received local praise from Portland/Oregon-based websites, but I don't see how they're notable beyond that. Same thing with the Eater Portland award. Local praise from a local website. Even Top Chef itself made light of it. Wani (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not required to expand an article to your liking. Why does Wikipedia have any stubs? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I'm under no obligation to google this person. You're the one who started this article. The content of the article makes no mention of notability beyond his appearance on Top Chef. That's why I nominated it. Wani (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are some things you should be doing before nominating: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails ANYBIO and GNG. I don't know that BLP1E applies as being on a TV show might preclude being a low-profile person. The media coverage I found is all Portland-area LOCAL coverage and all of that is related to the show. The subject is a nobody. That the author of this sad article couldn't be arsed to dig up the sources and use them tells me that Another Believer shouldn't be writing articles, at all. Redirects are too costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per this comment right here. Bgsu98 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ Redirect to Top Chef Portland. I see mentions and a few interviews, some routine business coverage of his restaurants, but no significant coverage of the article subject. Valereee (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Top Chef Portland. Like others, I found no evidence that suggests the subject meets WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Top Chef Portland. Existing articles do not demonstrate notability. Zeddedm (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the article creator and while I think there's enough coverage to create a nice little bio, I'd rather see this page redirected to Top Chef: Portland than deleted altogether. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Invitation (2022 film)

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

Non-notable future film lacking significant coverage, per WP:TOOSOON AND WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 14:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the production took place under the working title of "The Bride" so I'll see what I can find for that. If all else fails, sending this to the draftspace is probably a good option. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards draftify. There's a lot of pre-production stuff and a lot of release date announcements, but not really anything about filming. It releases in less than a month, so draftifying it would probably be the best option. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least until the movie comes out and we see what kind of reception it receives. Bgsu98 (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Feels like this was a draft like five minutes ago, it should only have been moved to mainspace if it had begun filming, which I'm unsure if it has.★Trekker (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It comes out this month. Bgsu98 (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - scheduled out at cinema this month. I've just come across this article when looking for information on the film and saw the deletion notice. Mark E (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've seen plenty of significant media coverage. It's a feature film coming out in a month from a major Hollywood studio, Sony. The sources on the article include from Variety, Deadline, Deadline again about casting and filming announcements, back when the movie was called 'The Bride'. There are also pages for the movie on Movie Insider, IMDB, and Rotten Tomatoes. Johnnyneville (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak keep. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atombapu Sharma

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

I tried to look for some stuff about this person through Google but all in vain; I found nothing. This subject fails GNG and also any other relevant subjective criteria. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Hinduism, and India. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the reference links provided in the article. Or Google it. You can find some articles and ebooks about Him. Manipuri Brahmin (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt either if u really checked it or you might have missspelled it. Manipuri Brahmin (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few references. One is a book reference that discusses the subject in detail, although with a controversial tone. Seems notable, although references are a bit difficult to gather.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 14:04, 30 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 It's Showtime (Philippine TV program)#Hosts. czar 04:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Gonzaga

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Never really acted. Refs are early stage PR and puff. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It's Showtime (Philippine TV program). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to It's Showtime (Philippine TV program) where she's a host of. Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Heaver

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTBASIC - noting the new standards that apply to sports biographies. There's no SIGCOV here and no major wins that would lead to a presumption of notability. Tagged for notability since April, nomination as G4 declined back in February - so here we are! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage doesn't reach the level needed to pass GNG, and achievements are below the level where significant coverage in secondary sources might be expected to exist. Coverage is mostly routine sports reporting in primary sources; as a result this "biography" is little more than a collection of match results. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:22, 30 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Doda

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

Tagged for notability since 2014. A brief look at the edit history shows that someone claiming to be Albert Doda has, on multiple occasions, tried to get the article deleted. See also User talk:Temrk. The article is currently a stats stub and searches in Google Images, Google News and ProQuest yielded nothing useful at all. DDG had some Albanian news stories but none of them appear to be about this particular Albert Doda. The article should be deleted per WP:GNG, WP:SPORTBASIC and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Soccerway only shows him playing in one game, which, even prior to the changes in WP:NSPORT recently, wouldn't have been good enough for a stand-alone article per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:46, 31 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. Tone 14:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Cenaj

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

Can't find any significant coverage and, since WP:NFOOTBALL is deprecated (bear in mind he only played 49 mins in the second tier of Albania so it's one of the weakest passes possible), WP:GNG is required and so a Soccerway stats stub is no longer acceptable unless significant coverage can be located. I searched using multiple search engines but couldn't find anything better than a passing mention in a crime news story in My London. The age of "Uesti Cenaj" matches the details for this footballer so it's likely that they are the same person but the level of coverage is insufficient for GNG and he doesn't meet the criteria at WP:PERPETRATOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Crime, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:47, 31 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Echendu Ndubuisi

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

Promotional BLP, subject lacks coverage in sources that are both independent and reliable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with aplomb, SPA creating article = COI/UPE suspected here, too. I'd moan about the honorific, but this is getting deleted anyway so it's not really worth it... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence of the subject meeting WP:GNG. The coverage I found doesn't seem to be independent. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give me some time to add source, thanks Fakultyng (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, non-notable article. NMasiha (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give me some time to edit article, thanks Fakultyng (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi, Give me some time to edit article accordingly, thanks Fakultyng (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Fakultyng (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrsSnoozyTurtle i have edited an removed Education Section, so i can gather a more reliable and independent proof before updating.

Also removed all information with not enough proof or reliable independent sources, and will get proof and update accordingly.

I Added citations to career and added photos certificates of business incorporation to career and philanthropist sections.

some of the new citations i added are links to corporate affairs registry in Nigeria and Ghana, when link is clicked for confirmation, kindly search for the entity it was cited for on the respective government websites.

kindly review and remove the AFD deletion tag with thanks.

Regards Fakultyng (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1: Video in 2019 of Echendu Unify Outreach in Ghana. Engr Echendu Ndubuisi Donate to Humanity - YouTube

2: Video Of Echendu Unify at Hour of Grace Outreach during the corona outbreak : THE ECHENDU UNIFY - YouTube

3: Link to search for all Echendu Incorporations in Ghana (Search for Echendu)

https://egovonline.gegov.gov.gh/RGDPortalWeb/portal/RGDHome/eghana.portal?_nfpb=true&_st=&_pageLabel=portal_RGDHome_NameSearchPage_page&linksPageTitle=Name+Search&service=namesearch#wlp_portal_RGDHome_NameSearchPage_page Fakultyng (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiat

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

This is not a valid disambiguation page: all entries are WP:Partial title matches not known solely as "Jamiat". The definition given is unsourced. An alternative to deletion might be a {{Wiktionary redirect}} to wikt:جمع Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Islam, and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:Partial title match is a reason to delete, because one of the reasons for the different spellings in English is different methods of transliteration. This issue comes up with many Anglicizations of Arabic words. This is evidenced by the fact that another disambiguation/definition page exists titled Jamaat which appears to be doing the same thing as this page and a little bit better in my opinion. So actually I think it would make more sense to merge it with that.Chagropango (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Jamaat example is unconvincing; those titles are partial title matches as well. Under the current guidelines, there is no need for disambiguation unless some of these entities are known as simply 'Jamiat'. A Wiktionary redirect or splitting into 'List of' articles (including 'Jamaat'?) would be viable alternatives. Leschnei (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Leschnei:@Chagropango: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaat. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Various partial title matches for the generic Arabic word جمعية (jamʿiyya, assembly) or translations into other languages. The only item which seems to be called just جمعية on enwiki is one of the terms defined at Areas of Kuwait. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MORe Cebu

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

This article is a duplicate of DYLS-FM (see history of the page) and the title "MORe Cebu or MORe Visayas" does not exist. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fully corresponds to another article: DYLS-FM. It refers to WP:ATTSIT. --Mestrossino (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate article of DYLS-FM. SBKSPP (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Freeze or Die

AfDs for this article:

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

The current sources are all unverifiable as they've gone 404 and I can't prove how much coverage they gave. Given that I only get 30 hits for the strip's name, I doubt the sources were substantial to begin with and I found no more in a WP:BEFORE. Zero results on GNews, for one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:51, 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?)} 03:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article cites six print articles; the submission speculates that these are not substantial but this is speculation only. Perhaps this submission would be stronger if these print sources were investigated first. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HenryCrun that more investigation in a case like this is required, so I will try to see what I can confirm:

The Boston College Magazine source we have: [13].
I cannot confirm through Google a connection between "Heather Matthews" and the Manchester Mirror. Might of course only be established in print.
John Clayton was indeed a columnist on the New Hampshire Union Leader during this period. No online archives available.
The Front Porch appears to be a daily interview show on local radio. I have no difficulty believing Walters interviewed Yuenger, but its use as a reliable source is very questionable.
WNDS News Now appears to be a news TV program (example). I've never seen something like this used as a source before, and I'm not sure how it would stand.

All of these sources being local, I feel fairly comfortable !voting Delete for this article, as a subject that is only of local interest. Most of these publications/programs have very little established presence within their (international) cultural sphere. If someone came in and gave more context on these sources, I might change my mind. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a spin-off of the graphic novel series of the same name begun in 1989 This isn't much to go on, but if a publisher is identified I might be able to find some old print sources covering the original series. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:26, 16 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!} 03:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: changed categorization to Fiction and the arts. SWinxy (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 07:28, 30 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 2022 ASEAN Para Games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelchair tennis at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games

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

Wheelchair tennis at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games

This article has no references. It also refers to a future event (as stated in the parent article) and does not give enough details to be encyclopedic, as well as being too soon for a future event. The lede sentence incorrectly uses the past tense. This article has no encyclopedic content. It does not belong in article space. Not moving to draft space because author moved another similar article back into article space from draft space, so might prefer an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Tennis, and Indonesia. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 ASEAN Para Games until there is enough information to write an article about the event. Iffy★Chat -- 10:33, 30 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. czar 04:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Cement Manufacturers Association

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

Trade organisation doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 23 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!} 05:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source doesn't even mention the topic. I can't access the second source, and cannot find any other sources providing significant coverage. Note there was a prior AfD from 2012 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh Cement Manufacturers Association (BCMA), but even the sources presented there do not seem sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to New Mal–Changrabandha–New Cooch Behar line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaldah Gopalpur railway station

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

As railway stations are not inhernetly notable, and this railway station clearly does not meet GNG, it should be deleted/redirected to its main line. All sources available are from sites like indiarailinfo.com, erail.in, and similar; aka, fancruft-style sites that list information on everything of remote relevance, have limited oversight, and are not indicators of notability. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Mal–Changrabandha–New Cooch Behar line, as the nom originally did. This does not justify a standalone article. I see the article creator has undone the redirect without comment, and added more primary or unreliable sources which do not help. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To note, the article creator did comment on their talk page noting their disagreement with my redirect and view that it is notable. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 19:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Mal–Changrabandha–New Cooch Behar line as WP:ATD. The government source can be used for WP:V but otherwise there are no WP:RS to justify an article. My own searches did not find anything interesting either. No prejudice to restoration when enough citable information can be found in WP:RS to create a start class article. Jumpytoo Talk 19:55, 30 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. czar 04:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of country subdivisions

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The vast majority of these have no source, no context, and aren't even important enough to be discussed in the article on the country subdivisions itself. Thankfully the list is very incomplete, as the country subdivisions has more than 1,000 country subdivisions apparently. Heraldrist (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Heraldrist (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. A page about regional, sub-national flags might be notable in itself, but it would be sufficient to include several regional or provincial flags as examples. Chagropango (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should we rollback all the way down back to this revision? Alexphangia Talk 07:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. I can see why this mess got nominated but this article wasn't always like this and there is scope to get it back on track. Alexphangia's suggestion is plausible. If we were to revert to that version, remove the red "flag of" links and strip out any duplicates then that would certainly be an improvement. We could then go through the current version and see which of the more recently added flags are demonstrably valid. That might not be easy as it is perfectly legitimate for people to upload self-created versions of flags and it is not obvious who is basing them on real flags with official status. I picked one of the Armenian ones as a test. (The fact that it had a lot of magenta in it made me wonder how genuine it was given that pure magenta is not a colour normally seen in genuine flags with a long history as it is a relatively new colour only made possible with modern pigments.) Is there any provenance to prove it genuine? Not that I can see? Is it fake? I doubt it. It is in multiple articles in multiple languages. You would think that somebody would have noticed. Is it official or unofficial? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't want to accuse anybody of deliberately uploading fake flags but we do need to take care that we don't conflate unofficial flags with official ones. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ We are not Vexillopedia. This can just as easily be managed with a Commons cat, without being a WP:NOT-worthy terrible idea either. Heraldrist (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC) (your deletion nomination is considered your "Delete" vote, you can not vote twice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Keep in a different form. I agree with DanielRigal's suggestion for an alternative to deletion. Flagvisioner (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we just only adding more flags from the list, until the list is complete. I agree I was interested in flags, France, and heraldry. I sure I am not a sockpuppet, even I was never have been blocked and I never editing sockpuppet accounts.
Keep, fulfils WP:LISTCRIT and can be made exhaustive with some effort (i.e., to include all the country subdivision flags in the world). Those who sugest swapping it for Commons categories are welcome to read WP:CLN. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Mittal

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. KSAWikipedian (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. KSAWikipedian (talk) 02:35, 23 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!} 02:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vice-Chancellor (i.e. most senior academic) at two universities. Mccapra (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as WP:NACADEMIC, I'm not sure if Vice Chancellor would qualify as the highest position, because there is a chancellor above him, however as I understand it in the British system which India follows the Vice Chancellor is effectively the head of the university. I also found media mentions of Mittal here, here, and here. His paper "An analysis of linkage between economic value added and corporate social responsibility" (which can be found here) has over 300 citations, including in a number of what appear to be established and reputable journals. Chagropango (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Above arguments are correct, vice-chancellor is actually the head of the university. The chancellor is merely the figurehead. Sort like a governor-general v prime minister situation in Australia, the GG is a figurehead, the PM is actually running the country. Australian National University for example has Julie Bishop, a former minister, as chancellor. However she is just the figurehead, the VC runs the university. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:53, 30 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!} 00:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S. P. Singh (jurist)

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

No indication of notability. The references are either primary or just routine coverage. KSAWikipedian (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. KSAWikipedian (talk) 02:31, 23 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!} 02:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vice-Chancellor (i.e. most senior academic) of Lucknow University. Mccapra (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACADEMIC requires that the person hold the highest elected or appointed post, wouldn't that have to be Chancellor rather than Vice-Chancellor? Chagropango (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no because the chancellor would be a titular appointment, e.g. Prince Charles, the President of India or some other worthy. Vice Chancellor is the senior academic and CEO of the university in UK-legacy systems. Mccapra (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in the British system which India follows, the vice-chancellor is actually head of the university. Chancellor is merely a figurehead. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:54, 30 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 13:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Arora (academic)

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

No indication of notability. The references are either primary or just routine coverage. KSAWikipedian (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. KSAWikipedian (talk) 02:19, 23 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!} 02:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete head of a university dept and I don’t see anything else that would make him notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Google Scholar turns up no academic publications at all. No coverage, no awards, no recognition by national or international institutes.Chagropango (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet ACADEMIC nor GNG - no tenable ground for inclusion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:56, 30 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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Laski

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria, based on the current sources, and it's unlikely there is much more out there. Laski22 (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Google books turns up more than I expected, can't say for sure and don't want to make a mistake. Sorry for inconvenience.--Laski22 (talk) 02:01, 30 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. Given that the prospective merger target has been deleted. Whether a redirect to List of Bowling Green State University buildings#McDonald Hall is worth it is a matter for interested editors to decide. Sandstein 09:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Hall

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

Only one secondary source in the entire article. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:36, 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?)} 00:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I could only find a passing mention from Comic Book Resources. I don’t think CBR is reliable considering it is loaded with trivia, but aside from that there were no other websites that I could find. Fails WP:GNG. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ian McConville ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selective content re Three Panel Soul and Mac Hall into Ian McConville. Artw (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could there be an alternative merge target besides Ian McConville as this article is also being considered for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the mention at List of Bowling Green State University buildings#McDonald Hall as a valid search term and alternative to deletion. Otherwise, delete: It's on the cusp of notability but the reliable, secondary sources are not there. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian McConville is likely to be deleted for want of dedicated coverage. An article on Three Panel Soul might be an appropriate save but it would need more sources than this CBR and this The Mary Sue to justify a standalone article. czar 03:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say merge into Ian McConville, but that looks like it's going to be deleted itself. A redirect to McDonald Hall isn't something I'd support because I'd want a mention that it was called Mac Hall. There aren't enough sources to justify its notability. SWinxy (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to extend this discussion a bit....or until another admin decides it should be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there's no more valid merge target, I suppose what we have on Mac Hall specifically can just be deleted. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. SWinxy (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam and Fuzzy

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one source which is a local newspaper from the author's hometown. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE. Tagged for notability 2+ years. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:25, 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?)} 00:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ – A few publications do mention Sam and Fuzzy as though it were a familiar title. Destructoid, Bleeding Cool, Polygon... None of these are particularly useful to write an article with, though. I'm really on the fence, it's a shame we don't have more to work with. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:31, 16 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!} 02:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Destructoid and Polygon are brief passing mentions, Bleeding Cool even less so; neither are even worth adding to the article. I did find a useful mention from the Rome News-Tribune from 2005. The The Martlet piece is non-trivial. There was also an article in a journal article Sam and Fuzzy (viewable on ProQuest), and it's also non-trivial. To sum up, a student newspaper, a journal article, and a newspaper article. Quoted from WP:RSSM: A topic which can be sourced exclusively to student media, with no evidence of wider coverage in mass market general interest media, is not likely to be viewed as notable. I would say that Sam and Fuzzy is not a notable web cartoon based on my analysis of coverage. SWinxy (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This actually makes me change my !vote to a Keep. The brief mentions in popular online magazines show wider interest, while the newspaper articles go more in-depth. I completely missed the Martlet article at first. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had hopes for the academic piece, but it's just uses the story as an example in this short (if academic) essay. Not SIGCOV. The Martlet piece is, let's face it, a student media blog level type of notice. I am not impressed. The RNT I can't access properly and it looks like the epitome of local, niche media. Even if we cobble all of this together I think we fall too short of notability. This is IMHO not the case of borderline, but still too little. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 31 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!} 01:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that in depth coverage in a student newspaper, plus passing mentions on a few minor news sites would be enough to prove notability, but I did find this in Wired. I know that Wired itself is reliable, but not sure about Wired Blog. Chagropango (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No awards, no reliable SIGCOV coverage. We have passing mentions and niche, mostly unreliable sources. Wired mention above is very short and does not meet SIGCOV, even before we get into the reliability of Wired Blog. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 31 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 01:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Sareen

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Coverage is all stage PR. Barely acted. scope_creep^Talk 01:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 30 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 13:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Seduction of Misty Mundae

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sexuality and gender. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's unclear why the AFD nominator removed a valid PROD tag in order to send it to AFD instead. But it is now no longer eligible for "Soft Deletion".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability per WP:NFO. Cannot locate reliable secondary sources, and no other relevant inclusion criteria seems apparent. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:45, 30 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.