Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 14	October 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J $tash[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search in Google News shows that this rapper was only notable for beating his girlfriend in 2014 and the 2022 murder of his girlfriend and subsequent suicide. These crimes have significant coverage, but I could find no significant coverage of his music. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Crime, United States of America, California, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, not a successful rapper and nothing notable as a criminal either. Oaktree b (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS - and fails artist bio. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable. Alex-h (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:23, 22 October 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!} 22:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALLEN Career Institute Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

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

Current sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and independence. With reference to this version, the first source is terribly fluffy ("Kota Coaching is now proving to be a gateway for World's Top University whereby coaching students are cracking entrance examinations of the top universities for taking admission" [1]); the second source is not independent; the third is fairly fluffy ("With this, ALLEN then gives an offer and opportunity to be further trained and groomed by allegedly the most experienced and qualified teachers for a sure-shot success" [2]); the fourth doesn't focus primarily on Allen; et cetera. Although they are superficially okay they all have issues of doubtful independence. I am also concerned about the ad-like tone. Ovinus (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 22 October 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 05:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Dawson[edit]

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

I admit my unfamiliarity with the sources that would be typical of an article on a fashion model so my ability to perform a WP:BEFORE search is somewhat limited, but so far as I can tell the sources present are no good (including the Daily Record article) for proving notability. In my search, I didn't see anything that looked like it would support this article, but again I could be mistaken in that regard. A redirect to Virgil_Howe#Personal_life seems most appropriate. QuietHere (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and England. QuietHere (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be almost no references here at all. scope_creep^Talk 10:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A new reference from Metro has been added by Milowent. Per WP:METRO, this source is considered generally unreliable. QuietHere (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't actually naked?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. The problem isn't with the facts, it's with the source not showing an increase in notability for the subject because it is considered unreliable. QuietHere (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke. I think any news coverage can count towards notability, even if lesser sources may not count for much. User:Bessiya who seems to have shepherded it over the past 13 years has not appeared, and this article just hasn't piqued my interest enough to try to rescue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would also support a straight delete if @Scope creep doesn't think my proposed redirect target is appropriate for some reason. I figure redirecting there is the right move since they were married and had a kid together, but if there's disagreement on that then I'd like to hear it. QuietHere (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Metro is non-RS. Ref 1,4 and 7 are non-rs. Metro can't count towards notability as its non-rs. scope_creep^Talk 07:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing for her, I keep getting hits for Dawson's Creek, the tv show. She appears to have dropped off the radar. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Mora (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer who failed to win a single title as pro. I could not find sufficient in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, only passing mentions such as this. Not to be confused with the American-born boxer of the same name who won a bronze medal at the 1998 Junior World Boxing Championships. JTtheOG (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 23:08, 15 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tana (rapper)[edit]

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

This rapper is just not particularly notable. Very little coverage outside of Wikipedia (WP:ARTN). Cited sources in the article are poor and do not lend credence to subject's notability in accordance with WP:GNG. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Skynxnex (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Non-trivial coverage by XXL seems to be enough, along with primary source of record label and trivial coverage of others like NME. Could be argued either way. VTVL (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the source is there. For example names and birthplace. Jady Mady (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is some independent significant coverage from XXL in the artilce. Additionally, here is an interview in Equate Magzaine. While not independent as source because it is an interview, it certainly shows the artist is being paid attention to by independent media publications.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 15 October 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 Konak, İzmir. The Merge target was kind of a toss-up but the article doesn't mention either the architect or the developer so I thought it was a better fit for the city. However Konak, İzmir doesn't have a second on skyscrapers and this isn't even the tallest in the city so some work needs to be done with this Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heris Tower[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 11:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Heris Tower is the 7th tallest building in the city as well as the tallest building built in the 2000s. (Central Data Bank (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@Central Data Bank, please show the independent and reliable sources about the article. Best, Kadı Message 11:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadı, Emporis' page on Heris Tower. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 43, Emporis is considered a reliable source. Not to mention Heris Tower is not a "random" building in Izmir as it held the title for the second tallest building in the city for 13 years. However, the article should be expanded and re-written. I can get to that in the next few days. Cheers. (Central Data Bank (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

The source contains very short information about the building. This is not adequate for to decide to keep it. Kadı Message 11:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also: WP:SIGCOV. Kadı Message 11:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing WP:SIGCOV is not really of help here because your reasoning seems to be subjective as to what is notable, I have stated the very clear reason for Heris Tower's notability as well as given a reliable source of info on the building. After-all, this isn't the Empire State Building so naturally its not going to contain as much info. Instead of nominating it in AfD, you can tag it as needing improvement. I assume this nomination was done in good faith, so I have inquired for a third opinion. (Central Data Bank (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

WP:SIGCOV is precisely relevant here, because a list of statistics about a subject is not significant coverage of it. Such a citation can be useful to add precise dertails to an article, but only if there are other, substantial referencesto establish notability.

Central, you appear to have the idea that it is possible for the notability of a subject to be based on what it is (or does etc). In the world outside, that is of course true, but in Wikipedia-land that is not true. The notability of a subject, as Wikipedia uses the word, does not depend at all on what the subject is or does or has done, but entirely on what has been independently published about the subject. Of course what the subject is or does has an effect on how likely people are to write about it, but it is the coverage that is key, not the subject itself. ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I revoke my opposition to its deletion. (Central Data Bank (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Asia, Europe, and Turkey. Kadı Message 11:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So its main claim to notability is that it was once the second-tallest building in Izmir? I don't believe that's enough. Maproom (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before expanding the article, just focus on finding and citing sources in the article. They may be in Hungarian, in which case, please provide translations of enough to make it clear that they include substantial coverage. JesseW, the juggling janitor 14:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be in Hungarian? ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that Hungarian. More like my stomach is complaining in hungerian; it wants some turkey. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Comment per JesseW, the juggling janitor@Central Data Bank: some reliable sources about the building:

This article from 2004 states Heris Tower as one of the 3 biggest plazas in izmir. And out of those 3 Heris Tower is the biggest with a capacity of 600.
The building is part of the case-study analysis in this research paper. (in Turkish)
This [research paper] confirms that as of 2014 the building was one of only 9 high-rises in Izmir.
This Yeni Asır article confirms that it is the 15th tallest building in Izmir as of mid 2021.
This biographical Hürriyet article about the guy who made the building.
Another article about the same guy this time in Habertürk.
An interview article about the same guy also in Habertürk.
Another interview Article about the guy in Son Söz.
this Son Söz article confirms that the building is 124 meters tall and has 26 floors. The article is criticising how they kept making tall buildings in Izmir and that there is no zoning laws which keeps the tall buildings confined to specific districts and argues that such law is needed.

Other sources:

This page wich may be a primary source states that it is "Izmir's first high-rise contemporary business center", may not be reliable for notability purposes but can be used as a reliable source for information in the article.
Came across many establishments addressed at the building, some of them quite important like consulate of the Republic of Ireland.

One big source that I did not check was the print Turkish Newspaper Archives such as the Cumhuriyet, Milliyet archives. There is a considerable likelihood that there is information to be found in those and other newspapers published in the years leading up to the construction and around when it was finished in 2001. Would be good if someone with access to the archives could scan.

I think the most prominent claims to notability is that it is the biggest(#1) capacity business plaza in Izmir at least through 2004, and have not found anything that states that it is no longer the biggest capacity presently. And the other claim of notability is this towers place in the history of skyscrapers in Izmir, as the first in a series of buildings that would come to define the skyline of Izmir, having historical and architectural importance.

If this article is still not kept at the closing of this discussion, then I think it should be at least redirected not deleted, perhaps to the businessman Selim Gökdemir (the guy who made the building) I came across substantial coverage on him as seen above and there is likely more when searched without the source needing to also cover "Heris Tower" in it. Selim Gökdemir is also notable in another way as he was involved in some capacity in the affairs surrounding FETÖ which has been covered in in reliable and significant sources such as this Milliyet article here.--Gazozlu (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazozlu, All of the sources you have been given only list the Tower's name and give very very short info. Not adequate for WP:SIGCOV. Kadı Message 16:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its status as Izmirs first skyscraper is well documented across multiple reliable third-party sources. Also its status as the largest capacity business plaza in Izmir is documented in a reliable source. These are strong indicators that there is likely more coverage elsewhere because these sources got their information from somewhere and you can use this information to do further research in the historical newspaper archives of late 1990's early 2000's. Another good starting point for further research would be looking up the sources that have been cited in those research papers. Regarding WP:SIGCOV, SIGCOV is only one of the ways "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" Gazozlu (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started the page Selim Gökdemir so merging to there is now an option.--Gazozlu (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Selim Gökdemir, I had not voted yet while waiting for further sources, but i'll just vote now in case this closes while i'm away. I will change my vote to Keep if someone can find more coverage in those places I mentioned above. There is definently more, in fact I am sure because this source: Colliers International(Colliers), 2008. Turkey Real Estate Market Review: 1st half 2008, 39-40, is about the building but I have not been able to access it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 14:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted in trwiki. Kadı Message 08:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although in the Turkish deletion discussion did not adequately address any of the existing topics are notable about the tower. Gazozlu (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Konak, İzmir or Selim Gökdemir per WP:ATD. Not independtely notable, as it fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is some opinion to Merge parts of this article but you offered 4 different options. Is there a preferred target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In my view the tower being (verifiably in multiple reliable sources): the tallest building in izmir for a while, the first skyscraper of the city, and the biggest business plaza of the city as of 2003 are significant enough to keep the article so my preference is to keep the article. If it is still to be merged then I think it's best merged into Konak, İzmir into a whole new section about the skyscrapers in that district of which this tower will be one of, so that will be a bit of work.--Gazozlu (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with Maproom. Being the seventh tallest building in İzmir, or even previously the second tallest, really is not remarkable enough for a standalone article. Nwhyte (talk) 19:40, 22 October 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!} 22:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Neighbors[edit]

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

I was unable to find any SIGCOV in non-routine sources, and the current article is a massive advertisement. Does not appear to meet GNG or NCORP. House Blaster^talk 22:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. House Blaster^talk 22:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The main content that explains what the company does is unsourced and largely sounds like an advertisement. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sourcing for this article is not good enough to establish it meets notability guidelines.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:53, 21 October 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!} 22:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Pinzón[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer whose only title wins as a pro were the WBC Youth and interim WBC Latino belts. I was not able to find sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no evidence that he meets WP:NBOX. I didn't find him ranked in the world top 10 and he didn't win any titles that would show WP notability. Winning interim and youth titles is not enough. All of the coverage is routine sports reporting--fight announcements, results, and databases. There's nothing that any pro boxer wouldn't have. Papaursa (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOX.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 22 October 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!} 22:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saeid Khater[edit]

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

WP:BLP, most likely WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username, of a computer programmer not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing our notability criteria for computer programmers. The footnotes here are almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as Facebook posts and the self-published websites of organizations directly affiliated with the claims -- there's just one source that seems to be both WP:GNG-worthy and actually about the subject, which is nowhere near enough.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have significantly better sourcing than this, and even if he were notable enough for a Wikipedia article he still wouldn't be entitled to write his own article himself. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Egypt. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary sources do not support the subject's notability, fails GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Source 11, which looks like a secondary source doesn't seem to mention Khater or the fact that 30 people were selected. As mentioned above, the article potentially being an autobiography raises WP:COI issues; even if the subject is found to be notable, this article should go through the WP:AFC process or be rewritten by an uninvolved editor. Yeeno (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 22 October 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 Turkey at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Archery. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Özdemir Akbal[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG. He competed, but ranked 59th in solo and 5th with the team. A WP:BEFORE didn't bring much coverage other than the mentioned in the article or databases. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turkey at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Archery per WP:CHEAP. Couldn't find any sources to indicate notability but not sure if any sources exist in Turkish. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would agree to this redirect as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turkey at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Archery as per Adamtt9, used to pass WP:NOLYMPIC before it was revised. Now does not pass NOLYMPIC or WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turkey at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Archery - WP:ATD Ingratis (talk) 20:37, 22 October 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!} 22:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Duthie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. The article may look superficially adequate, but the references are mostly player profiles and database entries with WP:SYNTH to generate prose. There is no evidence the player has been covered by reliable, secondary sources to such an extent that notability can be demonstrated. This was the opinion reached in the May AfD and I can't see an improvement. The Scotsman source is the only one that isn't a database-like entry, yet is just direct quotation from the subject. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Scotsman not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC as the coverage from reliable sources is completely trivial and does not address Duthie in any real depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 22 October 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!} 22:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan John Metzger[edit]

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

There are no in-depth references from reliable and verifiable sources about the individual in the article and no meaningful sources were found in a Google search. This source from Thesource.com provides some detail about an album he released, but doesn't say much about the artist.

I'm happy to reconsider / withdraw the nomination if appropriate sources can be found to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

These articles should be a great start to verify more about RJM the artist.

[3]https://theinscribermag.com/rjm-an-american-born-hip-hop-rap-artist/

[4]https://streamlinemusicblog.com/2022/07/11/artist-feature-rjm/

We are going to reach out to the company that made the Wikipedia page - which has the editing privileges.

I hope you will kindly reconsider as this can be fixed. Thank you.

Best regards,

Poetic Drive LLC RJMarmy (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RJM is also featured on nyweekly.com by a credible speaker and writer.

[5]https://www.rjmpoet.com/about-me

- You can also take a look at his website bio here RJMarmy (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, thank you for letting us know that this article was WP:PAID for. The account that created the page should probably be blocked as an undisclosed paid editor. There is zero reliable sourcing, either in the article itself or presented in this AfD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Professionally, assumptions are a biased point of view as this is all real information. It's searchable and listed on RJM's digital footprint. Every article can be found when searching "RJMpoet" or "RJM Poetic Drive" in a Google search. Thanks, RJMarmy (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them meet the bar of WP:RS, so notability is not established and this article should be deleted. GPL93 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's be charitable with WP:TOOSOON as the musician has not yet been noticed beyond his company's promotional efforts. As the other folks said, a Wikipedia article requires notability as shown by coverage in significant and reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and perhaps salt due to the UPE concerns. Currently fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 22 October 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!} 19:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Portelli[edit]

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

Participated at the 1980 Summer Olympics but did not rank high enough to medal and a WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up significant coverage outside of database sources. Suonii180 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also didn't find coverage outside of databases.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Malta. Suonii180 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of those articles that when it was created it passed the now altered WP:NOLYMPICS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 22 October 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!} 19:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khushaal Susraal[edit]

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

Non notable TV show. Impossible references. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Query for nominator -- Could you clarify what you mean by impossible references? Insufficient or something else? matt91486 (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt91486 There are four. TV listings are useless except to who that it exists at all, and Youtube is deprecated at best. The final one is some sort of un-gossip gossip column. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see, thanks. I just wasn't sure what you meant precisely by the phrasing. matt91486 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 22 October 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!} 19:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zartis[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Per source assessment table below, no sources currently in the article meet the requirements to contribute to WP:GNG. No WP:SIRS compliant sources were found via a search.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/start-ups/entrepreneur-dennehy-raises-300000-for-new-hr-app			Single sentence mention in article about another company Dennehy founded	✘ No
https://sociable.co/business/unprecedented-recruitment-campaign-from-twitter-google-facebook-others-to-entice-tech-talent-to-dublin/	Possible press release for campaign managed by Zartis		Short mention of Zartis, but solely in the words of CEO Dennehy	✘ No
https://technologyvoice.com/2013/01/29/john-dennehy-on-zartis-and-make-it-in-ireland/	Interview with founder/CEO Dennehy	? Possibly an RS, but also could equally be a multi-contributor blog	Content independent of interview is brief, less than WP:100WORDS.	✘ No
https://globalambition.ie/exporting-to-spain-and-portugal/	~ Press release from Enterprise Ireland that contains a quotation from then CEO Coffey	Promotion article from Enterprise Ireland	Brief mentions of Zartis, but only in words of then CEO Coffey	✘ No
https://reason-why.berlin/article/brits-in-berlin-john/	Looks like a paid for profile that was previously published in an inflight magazine	Promotional article from Berlin Partner für Wirtschaft und Technologie GmbH		✘ No
https://irishtechnews.ie/code-institute-partners-with-zartis-to-upskill-refugees/			Mentions of Zartis are brief and only describe that it will have a specific role in an online training program	✘ No
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/companies-urged-to-join-initiative-to-help-asylum-seekers-become-techies-1.4822440			Content on Zartis is not significant, but the article could count for SIGCOV of the LevelUp program via non quoted text	✘ No
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/careers/level-up-programme-zartis-coding-digital-skills			Content on Zartis is not significant, but the article could count for SIGCOV of the LevelUp program via non quoted text	✘ No
https://www.totalmobile.co.uk/news/tech-fast-50/	Totalmobile seem to be fully independent from Zartis	Press release from another tech company, does not meet RS standards	No mention of Zartis beyond its ranking in the list	✘ No
https://www2.deloitte.com/ie/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/fast-50-2020-winners.html		Press release from Deloitte	No mention of Zartis beyond ranking in the list	✘ No
https://www2.deloitte.com/ie/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/fast-50-2019-winners.html		Press release from Deloitte	No mention of Zartis beyond ranking in the list	✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/1210/1265945-employment-ireland/			Single sentence mention of Zartis with no description	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excellent assessment table. Fails GNG and NCORP.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 22 October 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!} 19:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Baranov[edit]

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

Pavel Baranov

Association football player about whom the only reference is a database entry. Was previously notable under the now-discontinued association football notability guideline. There is nothing in this stub that addresses general notability, which is the current governing notability guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't locate any SIGCOV in English or Russian-language sources, just trivial coverage like this. Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as said above, fails WP:SIGCOV.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 22 October 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!} 19:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Giles' Fair (disambiguation)[edit]

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

If this is a dab, then all but Oxford should be removed due to lack of DABMENTION, and G14 applies. Would a list or SIA have any value? Certes (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Certes (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete. Seems to be happenstance that these fairs have the same name. JMWt (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see a reason to convert to a SIA as there is no coverage at all. MB 15:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If only the Oxford one is notable enough to have an article I don't think we need a disambiguation page. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 16 October 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of headphone manufacturers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2009 and recreated in 2014 as basically a copy of Category:Headphones manufacturers. Does not seem to meet WP:NLIST. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete duplicates the category, and I cannot see how it could be meaningfully expanded. Also bordering on indiscriminate given that essentially anyone who has ever made audio equipment has made headphones, plus every computer accessory manufacturer after about 2000. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – An entire article consisting exclusively of blue links to Wikipedia articles is certainly not an indiscriminate directory, not at all. Rather, the article serves as a functional navigational aid for our public readership per WP:LISTPURP. Furthermore, the article entirely qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Headphones manufacturers. As a comparison, the category is much weaker in terms of informing the public with an encyclopedia:

The article has received 6,889 page views in the last thirty days as of this post.
The category page has received a scant 423 page views in the last thirty days.

– WP:READERS learn from articles more than categories. Articles that pass WP:NOTDUP do not also have to pass WP:NLIST. If this were the case, then people would have to only use cateories to learn. Since many less readers use categories, deleting such lists as this only defeats Wikipedia's purpose as an online encyclopedia to aid learning. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles that pass WP:NOTDUP do not also have to pass WP:NLIST. I don't know where you got that from. Every standalone list in mainspace needs to pass WP:NLIST, obviously. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, which is cited by WP:CLN, states as much. Pagestats do not factor into deletion discussions, so that argument is null too. Anyone voting to keep should base their arguments on the criteria laid out at WP:NLIST, no more and no less. Nobody has done so thus far. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Throast: See my comment below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Headphones manufacturers exist. I didn't think much of this list at first glance, but seeing someone else wanted to keep it I looked more closely. A lot of these companies are known for making this one thing, so its a legitimate list. Dream Focus 06:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to same as Category:Headphones manufacturers, seperate article for the same seems to be not needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranesh Ravikumar (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains that you can have a category and a list for the same thing, and shouldn't delete one because you prefer the other. Dream Focus 20:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to clarify that I did not nominate the article for deletion because I prefer categories over lists. I provided that info for context surrounding the first deletion discussion. I nominated because I fail to see this list passing WP:NLIST, Wikipedia's list-specific notability guideline. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pranesh Ravikumar: Note that per WP:NOTDUP, "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Essentially, your argument does not qualify deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't see how this passes WP:NLIST.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It states right at WP:LISTN that "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." It's made rather clear at WP:LISTN that navigational lists are typically retained, and the section of the guideline page even links to WP:LISTPURP, to provide further clarification. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's still no cure-all for AfDs of such lists, and thank god for that; it's just an observation of common practice, which is not necessarily best practice. The notability test is vastly important in limiting the otherwise endless scope of the project. I don't think we should be selective in its application in mainspace. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it is very clearly implied at WP:LISTN that navigational lists typically are not required to also meet WP:LISTN. It says right there that such navigational lists are typically retained on Wikipedia. There's a reason why it's worded that way there; Wikipedia relies in part upon such lists so WP:READERS can navigate the encyclopedia more efficiently and functionally. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NLIST. The statement of "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." doesn't appear to support that WP:NLIST can be ignored, and the "are often kept" part is merely an observation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:48, 23 October 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!} 19:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Lau[edit]

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

Promotional BLP created by SPA. A WP:REFBOMB of non-RSes, primary sources and press releases. Literally the only independent third-party RS here is the three-paragraph article about Lau moving from WEWS to Bloomberg. Lau does not appear to meet any criterion of WP:JOURNALIST, nor WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE shows no other RS coverage and hardly even any non-RS biographical coverage. PROD declined, but without any fixes. For this BLP to be kept, we would need clear independent third-party RS coverage demonstrating Wikipedia notability - is there any? David Gerard (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Cryptocurrency, Finance, and Hong Kong. David Gerard (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more crypto fluff. She works for Forkast and that's about all the articles I find, the ones from that site. Oaktree b (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 22 October 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. There isn't really a scenario where I see this being deleted Star Mississippi 01:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dene Park[edit]

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

Sources do not show anything significant or remarkable that would satisfy WP:NBUILD or WP:GNG, not even the Wikipedia references which violate WP:CIRCULAR. Additionally, I found no significant coverage in a search for additional sources – single-sentence mentions at best. ^Complex/_Rational 16:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, and England. ^Complex/_Rational 16:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dene Park is one of a number of manision houses in the area including Oxenhoath and Fairlawnes. It is cited or referred to in a number of other articles as “a house near Tonbridge” including the Thomas Delarue school and the 44th Infatry brigade as their battle school. This article give clarity to these articles as well as linking the site of the battle school to Thomas Delarue school which would otherwise be ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photowizzard (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to John Hollams per WP:ATD. Not finding any significant coverage on the structure, but some of the content could be reasonably included in the article on John Hollams provided we can find sources other than wikipedia itself to verify the content.4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a short paragraph in the West Kent and the Weald "Pevsner", but the house is not listed. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it does have an entry in the Woodland Trust for the woodland and I'd expect the building/estate would have more coverage in offline sources, see this] source for example though it may not be reliable. The Lodge] is also a grade II listed building. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The artice needs improvement (not a reason for deletion). A search of "The Times" for the term "Dene Park" omitting the term "Jesmond" (there is a Jesmond Dene Park in Newcastle upon Tyne) turns up 101 instances between 1878 and 1999. I've not had a look at what UK local newspapers will show up yet. As a substantial building comparable in size to Fairlawne House, Oxenhoath, Hamptons House, Douce's Manor and Yotes Court, it should be capable of sustaining an article. Possibly this should be moved either to Draftspace or I would be willing to host it at User:Mjroots/Dene Park whilst it is improved. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've done a bit of expansion and referencing, and added an infobox. Others have also added to the article. A request has been made to the article's creator for more references. As needing improvement is not a reason to delete, we should keep the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as Hassocks said, it's not listed. Nor does it get a mention in Girouard's Victorian Country House. But, again per Hassocks, the revised West Kent Pevsner does give a little - the architect's name is Miller, not Millar - on pp281-2, where it is described as a "substantial Victorian mansion in a Waterhousian Tudor Gothic." I would have thought the Milner garden would throw something up, but can't see anything. A later Hollams, of Dene Park, was High Sheriff of Kent in 1917. KJP1 (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that Dene Park is an OS settlement[6]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per KJP1. Suitably expanded since listing. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sourcing is improved, and there's a movement towards keeping the article, but as yet no one has made the case that a notability guideline is actually met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:55, 15 October 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. No consensus for or against a merger, but clear consensus that the topic is notable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vinidarius[edit]

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

As the page itself says, little is known about this character - or even if he even existed - and as the talkpage suggested in 2009 there's nothing here that wouldn't fit at Apicius. JMWt (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Apicius. The content here is obviously encyclopedic and belongs on Wikipedia; someone searching for Vinidarius or his manuscript should find an article that provides this information, and that will only happen if the content is kept or merged into another article. If it isn't under his name or that of his book, then it should be under Apicius—if it doesn't seem to fit there, then it should probably stay where it is. Either way, deletion is the wrong procedure; that eliminates the content rather than placing it in an appropriate location, without leaving a redirect, or preserving the article's history. We don't delete articles because relatively little is known about their subjects, or because scholars express doubts as to whether the person's correct name is known; presumably somebody compiled the book, even if "Vinidarius" was a pseudonym—and even if we knew that it was a pseudonym, we would have to call him "Vinidarius" as long as we don't know what else to call him, and in any case we would still have to mention that the author is identified as "Vinidarius". P Aculeius (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per P Aculeius. Could be merged uncontroversially, so why AFD? Srnec (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we don't keep articles about little-known people either. We delete articles about folks, who while might be interesting, do not have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, which this article clearly does not have. However, this, this, and this would put them over the bar in terms of notability. Will add them to the article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 22 October 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!} 04:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thilanka Rathnayake[edit]

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

Bio of a "social media strategist" with no claim to notability. As I stated in my PROD rationale, it is a case of WP:ADMASQ. The PROD template was removed with the comment "Notable weblinks are given. Acfepted and reviewd by an admin." There's been no review however, and as for "notable weblinks" it's anybody's guess what that might mean. There is no coverage of him in any independent, reliable and secondary source. bonadea contributions talk 14:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sri Lanka. bonadea contributions talk 14:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't your linkedin. No sources found, all I see are a few articles he's written. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just a promotional profile.
Delete as it does not meet the guidelines of a suitable page that should exist on Wikipedia. The article is fully promotional and it shows no importance at all. Sources are unreliable. Timothytyy (talk) 00:50, 16 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Bowers[edit]

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

Non-notable barrister: specifically failing WP:GNG. No evidence of significant coverage of Bowers in reliable sources. He is mentioned in connection to events, but there is no coverage of him. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find him mentioned as counsel in many cases, some quite high profile, but I am unable to find significant coverage about him that would support inclusion of this article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 22 October 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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Reading Beans (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donatus Edet Akpan[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf on an IP. Deletion rationalle (from talk page) The reason for nominating this article for deletion is that there is very little detailed coverage of him in independent references. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Nigeria. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be plenty of sources: e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, just from the first 2 pages of a google search. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ficaia. Mccapra (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources identified above so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as yet another example of what the presumption of notability means: If you can't find sourcing on a Roman Catholic bishop, odds are pretty strong that you simply haven't looked hard enough or in the right places. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources found by Ficaia demonstrate GNG is met, and therefore the topic is presumed notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is quite some info on him in English language to be found on him.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bishops of major denominations have always been considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 17 October 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 Qatar Foundation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Out To Asia[edit]

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

This is one of many articles written by employees of the Qatar Foundation to advertise the organization's activities. There is very little to indicate that this is an independently notable subject. If there is anything worth keeping, it should be merged with Qatar Foundation. Thenightaway (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Qatar Foundation as suggested, the article seems promotional. I don't find much that isn't a press release. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect; no significant, independent, in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 17:29, 15 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EcoFlow Technology[edit]

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

Although they are well-formatted, sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:NCORP says, "specific topic[s] related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization". Indeed, all of the in-depth sources focus on the company's products. We need sources focusing on, say, the history of the company. Ovinus (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello, I am the creator of the page. This page was approved in AFC by The_Most_Comfortable_Chair, so maybe he can also comment. Although I see your point that the majority of citations are about the products and not the company, there are still 3 existing citations that are about the company, which are:

https://www.repubblica.it/green-and-blue/2021/09/16/news/ecoflow_ora_la_casa_va_a_batteria-317796195/

https://www.dealstreetasia.com/stories/ecoflow-gl-ventures-245272/

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Startups/Chinese-tech-startups-flock-to-foreign-crowdfunding-platforms

I have also searched and found these additional citations about the company, some include history:

https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/02/ecoflow-glamping-portable-battery/ - very in depth and has company history about founders, etc

https://mattiadistasi.com/the-most-funded-kickstarter-2021-12-million-ecoflow-delta/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-09/sequoia-backed-battery-unicorn-prepares-for-ipo-as-demand-spikes

https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/27/ecoflow-raises-4m/

https://www.explorebit.io/article/EcoFlow%2520raises%2520over%2520USD%2520100M

Thanks. Dcbkue (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for other editors that Dcbkue has been paid for this article, according to their user page. Thank you for commenting here. TechCrunch is generally not okay for notability (see WP:TECHCRUNCH) because it's difficult to establish independence. Mattiadistasi.com is self-published. The Bloomberg piece fails the "completely independent" requirement of our notability guidelines for companies. www.explorebit.io looks like a meh quality source to me, but it's also fairly routine—just a funding announcement. The Deal Street Asia one is paywalled so I'm unable to assess it, as is the Nikkei Asia one, but from the intro they look like plain old funding articles. I can't assess the Italian one for independence, either, since it's paywalled. Thank you for the additional sources, though, and other editors may have a more charitable view of them. Ovinus (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have been paid to post it and it has been fully disclosed per the guidelines, but it is not against policy to comment as long as I have disclosed my association.

- For the Italian article search Google by clicking here and then click open the article and you can read it. You can use Google translate to read it. In fact, its got lot's company info and history.

- Re: WP:TECHCRUNCH. it says "Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing." Both Techcrunch articles are by staff writers. Check their bios. These would be considered reliable as they are not contributors and they do not have a conflict of interest.

- mattiadistasi.com/ : is not self published! why and how you came up to this conclusion?

-Bloomberg: since it was behind paywall, how did you come to this conclusion? In fact this is a good article and has info about the company. You can read it also read the full article on Yahoo here.

- Deal Street Asia - You can create a free account to read it.

- asia.nikkei.com - You can also register for free here and read it. This is a pretty in depth article about them. Dcbkue (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another article with no significant information that exists only to bestow reputation upon its subject by restating its product launches and funding. FalconK (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Falcon Kirtaran I want to point out that none of these 3 articles below are about funding or launching:

techcrunch.com 1st article

repubblica.it/

techcrunch.com/ 2nd article

But even if an article is about a launch or funding as long it has info about the company, it is acceptable:

For example nikkei.com has a few paragraphs about the company and its founder.

This one mattiadistasi.com/t although the title is about Kickstarter funding, the article has a lot of info about the company and its products.

The bloomberg article which you can read here has a lot of info about the company, don't let "IPO" in the title mislead you and read the full article.

In addition, I have found some new articles for everyone's consideration:

https://technologytimes.pk/2022/09/14/ecoflow-to-introduce-home-backup-energy-solutions-to-address-power-needs-in-nigeria/

theverge.com/ This articles provides good history about company's product lines.

guardian.ng/ Has a bit of info about the company and its history. Dcbkue (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The techcrunch coverage is not great. Besides often being a very low quality source, the parts of these articles that are not routine coverage or quoting press releases are mostly quotes from company executives. This is really minimal. Information just that the company exists and goes about its business does not establish notability; neither do product reviews. There is a high bar because the business press gushes about almost every flash in the pan, but a company isn't notable until it does something to make history. FalconK (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I beg to differ. techcrunch.com/ 1st article has several paragraphs that are not quotations and are about the company, paragraphs 1, 2,3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15.
  
  The 2nd article https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/27/ecoflow-raises-4m/ has also many sections not about funding or quotation, including paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16. Dcbkue (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is factually incorrect at least in part. In particular, the first few paragraphs you mention in the second article are exactly about promotion, but several others are instead announcements of price; combined with the highly positive point of view, this article is more product placement than objective journalism. A Wikipedia article isn't a trophy a company gets after it invests enough in publicity; it's a thing that comes about when a company has become significant enough that third-party sources take objective notice of it. FalconK (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you implying that the TechCrunch writer was paid to write a promotional article? if not what exactly are you saying? if someone talks positive about a product is that bad? Also, I hope you can see that the 2 Techcrunch articles are written by different writers and if you click on their profiles, you would see that they are credible staff writers with lot's of other writing. Dcbkue (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. in case it was not obvious, here is my keep vote based on my comments above. Dcbkue (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not the greatest sources, most are promotional/mentions in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen my comments above. Several of these are not mentions. Also which specific articles are promotional? can you point them out? By 'promotional" do you mean they have been paid for by the company? Have you checked Google news? I do not see how 267 articles that come up in Google news can all be promotional. Is there any issue with the 2 Techcrunch articles? theverge.com is also very detailed and has company history info. Dcbkue (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
see below. I didn't see much we can use for sourcing, it's mostly stories about a certain product they have or mentions of the company in relation to something else. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment. Google news returns 267 news articles when you search the company name. Most are product reviews. Although there are several that I pointed out above about the company, another idea would be to revise this page title and content to "Ecoflow (Batteries)" and make the page about the products rather than the company, because of the massive amount of articles that exist about the products. What do you think? Dcbkue (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And here are additional new articles to consider:

bnews.vn - A few sections are about the company

diendandoanhnghiep.vn/ - A few sections are about the company

basic-tutorials.com/ - indepth review of the products but also has a section about the company

ladepeche.ma/- indepth review of the products but also has a section about the company Dcbkue (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two that meet the criteria. We require deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the *company* and also containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. For example, the TechCrunch article fails ORGIND because it is probable that *all* of the information in the article was provided during a call with TechCrunch by Wang and there is nothing to show that the information is clearly attributable to a different source unaffiliated to the subject company.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not entirely accurate or the case. You say " References cannot rely only on information provided by the company," but when a journalist does their due diligence, verifies all information and writes an article, then it is acceptable. It should be assumed that credible journalists and publications do their own research to confirm the reliability of the information and then publish. Another example is that press releases are not acceptable, but if a publication picks up on it, does research or calls the company for an interview and then writes their own piece on it then it is acceptable, even tough article originally was provided, by the company, but once the journalist has done their research and written a new article, it is no longer considered primary. If what you say was the case, then 99% Corporate citations would not be acceptable. i,e Apple announces a new version of iPhone. Can no citation be used, because all articles are based on a press release of the company?? You also have not specifically stated why these are not acceptable:

basic-tutorials.com/ - ladepeche.ma/- diendandoanhnghiep.vn/ - bnews.vn -theverge.com/ - guardian.ng/ - bloomberg - repubblica.it/ - mattiadistasi - explorebit.io Many of these have company coverage and some very indepth.

Dcbkue (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order for a reference to meet the criteria for establishing notability, it must meet ORGIND - that is, it must contain "Independent Content" (see above). An article that relies solely on information provided by the subject with no commentary/analyis that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the subject has no "Independent Content". Saying something along the lines of "but the journalist is credible and naturally confirmed the reliability of the information" is an assumption unless it is clearly evident from the content. Hence the precise wording of ORGIND. Also, be aware that there is a difference between sources used to support information within an article and sources used to establish notability. Any citation from a reliable source may be used (press releases, etc) to support information within an article - it doesn't mean those same citations meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, would you say or agree that it may be better to convert this page to a product page rather than a company pages, because there are over 250 articles available about the products of the company? Dcbkue (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there certainly appears to be a number of reviews of their products and there is a distinct possibility that at least one of their products has garnered sufficient independent analysis/review to meet NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I understand and appreciate the arguments put forth by the article's creator, the delete arguments above are the more applicable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 22 October 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 14:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Calixto[edit]

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

Not finding evidence that the subject will pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL ASUKITE 13:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. ASUKITE 13:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional piece for a clearly non notable individual. Mccapra (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable local politician whose only possible claim to notability is that he is the son of the former mayor of a large city, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Page is also highly promotional, though CSD:G11 does not apply as there is some biographical information as well. Frank Anchor 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors are not "inherently" notable just for holding office; to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city councillor has to demonstrate and source a credible reason why he should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors. But this is written like a résumé, not like a proper encyclopedia article, and is referenced entirely to the city's own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of notability-building coverage in third-party sources. And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the fact that his father happens to be a member of the national legislature does not make him more special than other city councillors either. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Who knows, they may become notable someday; they are not, today. BD2412 T 22:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Also WP:NOTINHERITED.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:SNOW. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:NPOL with WP:NOTINHERITED. Considered as WP:SNOW due to all voted !delete. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:03, 21 October 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 14:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Crew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar concerns to the last AfD. Skimming through the sources, all of them seem to be some combination of lack of depth, unreliable sources, or not related to the subject. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the nominator of the first AfD two years ago, and it ended as "soft delete" because nobody voted. This time, the new nominator is correct that the situation has not improved. Reckless Crew was a loose collective with a few members that did notable things much later. This article looks like it has a lot of sources, but they are about individual members like D Double E and Bruza, with their association with Reckless Crew merely being listed as a tidbit in their early histories. Reckless Crew does not gain notability by association (WP:NOTINHERITED). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 22 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlight (financial technology company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, even a case here for G11. Routine announcements, promotional content, company website. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORPDEPTH and coverage being paid sourcing and a limited audience. I checked out several of the sources which appear to be niche services to financial industries:

- TechCrunch is a promotional site with a membership fee. "...We help founder and startup teams get ahead..."

- PaymentsJournal is an industry website that solicits 700-1000 word articles.

- VentureBeat is also a membership site that invites readers to contact reports and hosts guest posts and sponsored posts.

- IBS intelligence is also a client-service site providing "business strategies for financial services clients worldwide.

Two non-specialized sources are the Seattle Times which gives it passing mention and a Forbes piece written by a "contributor". Forbes contributors, as opposed to Forbes staff writers, is considered Generally Unreliable sourcing as it lacks fact checking and editorial oversight. These contributor pieces are often self-published. (See WP:FORBESCON.) Blue Riband► 17:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RS/P, VentureBeat is "generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games", meaning that it could be used within the article. dksn123 (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VentureBeat and TechCrunch most certainly can be considered reliable for notability. They are harder though because you have to read through and make sure it is not marked as a sponsored article or just a reprint of a press release. The TechCrunch article in the current page is NOT reliable as it is an interview and would fail WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of in-depth coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT including this from Forbes (written by staff writer), this from WSJ (looks like a routine announcement based on the headline but contains in-depth information about the company), and this from CNET (also written by staff writer). --CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SERIESA. Coverage is "company raises money" and "company launches product", and it's just not notable. FalconK (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is routine. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 22 October 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!} 19:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FotoSketcher[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:CORP. MarioGom (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. MarioGom (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nom RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 15 October 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 14:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eglajd Dedej[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC; searches in ProQuest, Google News and DDG all yielded no detailed WP:RS coverage of Dedej. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 15 October 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)} 12:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have seen a lot of articles created about players cited with one or two sources, usually a database of some sort. Maybe this is a similar situation. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC now says that [sports] biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. I can't find anything to suggest that Dedej qualifies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 22 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kumar Singh[edit]

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

fails notability — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Headmaster of a village primary school may be a meritorious occupation, but I'm not seeing any plausible claim to wiki-notability. Due to some odd page-move history, there is a copy of this at Manoj Kumar (educator). XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Comes pretty close to A7, I think; I might hesitate because there's a source listed but it doesn't look to be independent coverage. The world is full of extremely meritorious individuals who are key to their local community but have no global notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The source is from a national non-profit pro-government-school organization, not from the local primary school he heads, so I think it's independent enough. But it's only one source, not enough by itself for GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 22 October 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 14:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soe Arkar[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP cited only to a database with low standards for inclusion, so clearly not meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Searches in Burmese and English sources do not demonstrate any significant coverage. Best I can find are single passing mentions in squad lists in Goal.com and Mizzima. He is erroneously mentioned in the caption at The Sun Daily; Soe Arkar is a goalkeeper and the player pictured is an outfield player. In any case, the depth of coverage is woefully inadequate. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass WP:GNG. There is some notability but not enough imo. JojoMN1987 (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply does not pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 22 October 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!} 19:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayar Badhon (TV series)[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Non notable TV series. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Bengal. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shame it wasn't left in draft and the creator put some effort into it. Can't see how it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 22 October 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!} 19:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Howeidi[edit]

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

Syrian doctor, preacher and member of the Islamic Brotherhood. In none of these roles does he achieve any form of notability (even notoriety) and the article is sourced entirely to the Brotherhood's website. Fails WP:GNG, ANYBIO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Syria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title appears to be a non-standard spelling. Hasan al-Huwaidi yields a bit more, but still nothing that's not trivial so far. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough sourcing, using either of the spellings, to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 22 October 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 List of periodic comets. Consensus was to redirect. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C/2015 F5 (SWAN-XingMing)[edit]

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

The coverage is from databases, blogs, forums, some photos and the discovery announcement in CBET, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed. C messier (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Halley-type comets, where it is already listed. All I can find are some early discovery bulletins. It hasn't been the subject of a serious study. Praemonitus (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Praemonitus. It isn't notable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:20, 17 October 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 List of periodic comets. Consensus was to redirect. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C/2015 F3 (SWAN)[edit]

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

The coverage is from databases, blogs, twitter posts, forums, some photos and the discovery announcement in CBET, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed. C messier (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of periodic comets. There are a pair of discovery bulletins and it is mentioned briefly in Combi et al. (2021), but I don't see significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Praemonitus. There's one paper by Sekanina & Kracht (2016) and another ATel publication by Ferrin & Penuelas (2021) which both mention C/2015 F3 being part of a possible orbital grouping with disintegrated comets C/1988 A1 and C/1996 Q1, but other than that the coverage is limited. The disintegrated comet trio is interesting but is only worthy of a footnote to some broader topic like asteroid pair (that article needs work by the way, I'd appreciate it!). Nrco0e (talk) 06:35, 19 October 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 List of hyperbolic comets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C/2019 E3 (ATLAS)[edit]

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

The only coverage is from databases and the discovery announcement in Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, contain information on unusual minor planets and routine data on comets, and thus fails WP:NASTRO. --C messier (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of hyperbolic comets. I don't see significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:38, 17 October 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 14:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Sutcliffe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All that is known is that he played one game for the Keighley Cougars. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Familiar territory for me, but I don't regard everyone who plays top-flight sport, even for a single game, as notable. Others apparently disagree hence much of Wikipedia is sports. I think Rovers players is quite interesting in this regard - clearly a lot of players in that list are red so are presumably not notable outside of the list. I'm not any kind of expert on RL but presumably someone who went on from Featherstone to Keighley (which I assume was a lower league team in the period in question) is unlikely to have become more notable. Delete as non notable. JMWt (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surendra Panwar[edit]

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

One of a number of sub-standard items frm the same editor (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajaram Meel). Does not pass WP:GNG, sourcing is only to articles written by the subject. Eagleash (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Speedy delete) I just moved this to drafts half an hour ago, now this AfD opens, and turns out in between this was already draftified a second time. No indication of notability by any stretch of definition. Before draftifying I was first going to request A7/G11 on this, and still think it's eligible for that, but equally happy to let the AfD run its course. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - journalist just doing their job with no apparent significant coverage about them. Panwar has written a few articles but articles written by the subject do not confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been moved unilaterally to Draft, presumably to circumvent this process 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page has been moved to a different title and around in Draft space and in returning it to its original location, several edits were deleted. They had no affect on the content of this article though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Journalist fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to show how he is notable, no reliable secondary sources. The article creator may be a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baba1031. --bonadea contributions talk 20:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note Deleted per WP:CSD#G5.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shubgali people[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable grouping of Pakistanis. There is no reliable source that supports the classification as an ethnic group or people; the only possibly reliable source cited is the government website of Lower Chitral District which briefly mentions tribes known as Shubgali. No RS found in a before search. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few more references on article Shubgali people, They mention the presence of the ethnic group Shubgali in Chitral District as well. (Quotennial (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

The new references both give bare mention to "Shubgali" as a tribe, in a list of other tribes without any other information. Bare mention in a list does not contribute to GNG. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interview (2000 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews were found pertaining to the actual film.

PROD removed with "deprod; take to AfD" DonaldD23 talk to me 05:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 05:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is one reliable source/review, Variety, according to Derek Elley of Variety (who gave a mixed review), "A decent movie lies at the heart of the romantic drama "Interview," an over-long feature debut by Daniel H. Byun that suffers from a bad case of first-film-itis". But, I'm so sorry, there are clearly no more reliable sources or reviews and I don't think this page will be removed. No, don't do that. It's part of the Dogme 95 films as well as Byun's film debut and I can improve that page at all. What about Gay Galician Dogma trilogy, which directs Once Upon Another Time (2000; Dogme #22), Wedding Days (2002; Dogme #30), and The Outcome (2005; Dogme #31) by Juan Pinzas. Three of them are almost empty and left for dead for ten years with/without reliable sources, but I am the one who can nearly improve yesterday. How is that? Fortunewriter (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Elley, Derek (2000-11-19). "Interview". Variety. Vol. 381, no. 1. pp. 16–17. ProQuest 1438560452. Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17.
  The film review notes, "A decent movie lies at the heart of the romantic drama “Interview,” an over-long feature debut by Daniel H. Byun that suffers from a bad case of first-film-itis. Attempting to cram in everything except the Meaning of Life, Byun alienates the viewer from pic’s undoubted strengths and emphasizes its pretentious weaknesses. Unfortunately, the film is being marketed internationally in a discursive two-hour-plus version, which is a serious mistake."
3. Song, Yong-deok 송용덕 (2000-03-28). "[새영화] 사랑, 진실 그리고 비디오카메라...인터뷰" [New Movie] Love, Truth and Video Camera...Interview]. Maeil Business Newspaper (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The content of the film is that the director who was filming a documentary film called ‘Interview’. It is the story of a woman who meets and falls in love during the process of interviewing them. The film begins with an interview with the general public. Eun-seok (Lee Jung-jae) captured it on camera. You can see the love stories of ordinary people. In this process, Eun-seok is in the monitor. You see Yeong-hee (Shim Eun-ha). The general that can be seen in real movies. The length of the interview with the cause is about 10% of the movie, but the meeting between Eun-seok and Young-hee. Their parallel love story wraps the whole movie in a warm atmosphere."
4. Song, Yong-deok 송용덕 (2000-04-04). "[그영화 뒷얘기] 인터뷰 사진덕분에 '인터뷰'캐스팅된 이정재" [[Behind the scenes of that movie] Lee Jung-jae was cast in 'Interview' thanks to the interview photos]. Maeil Business Newspaper (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "With the strongest formation in this way, ‘Interview’ was launched. actors take over It's a fiction part, and the actors were so seasoned, it went without any problems. However, the part of the documentary that was decided to be filmed by the general public requires careful attention. work."
5. Jeong, Kyung-moon 정경문 (2000-03-29). "'인터뷰'" ["Interview"]. Seoul Economic Daily [ko] (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "A unique Korean movie that should be seen and felt rather than read and understood has emerged. It is 'The Interview' (produced by Cine2000, directed by Byun Hyuk), starring Shim Eun-ha and Lee Jung-jae. 'The Interview', which started previewing ahead of its release on the 1st of next month, is gathering an extraordinary topic among filmmakers. 'Interview' was a work that drew the attention of filmmakers from the production process because of its unique material and narrative structure."
6. Kelly, Richard (2000-12-10). "Film: So you really think you can do it Dogme style? Directors subscribing to the film-making manifesto need clear intentions to dodge stylistic traps, suggests Richard Kelly". The Independent. p. 2. ProQuest 311825376.
  The article notes: "The latest batch offer mixed results. Korean director Daniel H Byun's Dogme#7: Interview manages to violate a fistful of rules within its first five minutes, cramming in dolly shots, moody lighting, a director's credit and a tinkling score as if purposefully endeavouring to fail the audition. Worse, the plot is a lot of self- conscious maundering about a film student's romantic obsessions. For this viewer, Dogme films should be as uncouth as possible, as in parts of Festen and all of The Idiots."
7. Alford, Christopher (1999-11-15). "Korea's 'Interview' with the Dogma". Variety. Vol. 377, no. 1. p. 24. ProQuest 1401422408.
  The article notes: "Shooting on Byun's debut feature, "Interview," began in September and takes him to France — where Byun studied at the film school FEMIS — for some lensing this month. ... "Interview" is budgeted at $2 million, utilizing digital video and 35mm for the story within a story of a director interviewing people about the intimate details of their lives."
8. Schepelern, Peter (2005). "Films according to Dogma: Ground Rules, Obstacles, and Liberations". In Nestingen, Andrew; Elkington, Trevor G. (eds.). Transnational Cinema in a Global North: Nordic Cinema in Transition. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. p. 99. ISBN 0-8143-3243-9. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Other international Dogma films are registered by the Dogma secretariat at Nimbus film (see Dogma95). Daniel H. Byun's South Korean Interview (2000, Intyebyo). The film does not explicitly mention that it is registered as Dogma 7 (originally Dogma 7 referred to a scheduled German film, Broken Cookies, that Udo Kier should have directed; the film was never realized). Interview is a long-winded story about making a documentary about love. It is full of metaelements like scenes of filming (for example, by Tarkovsky's grave in Paris), interview situations, and video recordings (including one that uses forbidden background music)."
9. Desser, David (2012). "Timeless, Bottomless Bad Movies: Or, Consuming Youth in the New Korean Cinema". In Gateward, Frances (ed.). Seoul Searching: Culture and Identity in Contemporary Korean Cinema. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-7914-7225-5. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "More daringly, Interview (Daniel H. Byun, 2000) leaps between registers of past, present, and conditional, where some narrative may be fantasy or otherwise difficult to place within a coherent story outline."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Interview (Korean: 인터뷰; RR: Inteobyu) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the sources identified in this discussion such as reviews in Variety and The Independent so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elesin Oba, The King's Horseman[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "deprod; take to AfD" DonaldD23 talk to me 05:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nigeria. DonaldD23 talk to me 05:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged for notability, which was and is an issue. No further case for notability has been made. Sources are tangential, passing or in fact don't mention (in the case of ref 1) the film at all! We indeed have no reviews, awards or other evidence of any enduring impact. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NFILM. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — there are multiple reliable and independent sources that meets the general notability guidelines (before any other SNG). I'll provide them when I switch to my computer. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to list these sources? Just saying there are reviews and sources does not make this pass notability. They need to be identified, and they have yet to be listed here or added to the article. Thanks. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23, are we really doing this?. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

Significantly: It was directed by of Africa's most recognized directors, Biyi Bandele and this was his last hit before he passed on months ago. This movie premiered at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival is based on Death and the King's Horseman by Wole Soyinka, the first black person and African to win a Nobel prize for literature. Can you feel the weight of its significance?

WP:NFILM

- The film has significant and independent coverage across sources that are reliable (see WP:NAIJARS). If you would click each of the references objectively, you will see.

- In Other evidence of notability, the film strongly meets criteria (2). We know not all films are required to meet all 5.

- Under inclusion criteria, it meets 2 and 3.

Let's continue making Wikipedia a place for notable knowledge even on subjects from countries far and less known to us. Danidamiobi (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Reading Beans and Danidamiobi above. Princess of Ara 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jára Cimrman Lying, Sleeping[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. I found nothing useful in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "Deprodding; needs a full search for Czech language/offline sources" DonaldD23 talk to me 05:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Czech Republic. DonaldD23 talk to me 05:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What kind of sources are considered "reliable" in this context/topic area? This film is extremely famous in the Czech Republic and I'm sure any kind of sources can be found. What do you need? Jdcooper (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, here are a couple of news/magazine articles with background on the film: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Does this count? Jdcooper (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I have no objection to those being recognized as significant coverage with them being enough for this to pass at the very least WP:GNG. But I will leave it up to others/admin on how this AfD should be closed. Thx DonaldD23 talk to me 20:28, 21 October 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!} 05:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caricature during the 2011 Libyan Civil War[edit]

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

Created by an SPA in 2011. The article is tagged with WP:OR tag for more than a decade. It either talks about some biographical points of Muammar Gaddafi or it is merely passing comments on caricatures created in 2011 by using unreliable sources like youtube, "truthfrequencynews", and others. There is nothing that couldn't be covered on First Libyan Civil War. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've had a quick look through Google/Google News/Google Scholar and can't find anything that would suggest this is a notable topic. I don't even think that there is anything here that could be merged into First Libyan Civil War. The only material in this article which is not in the civil war article is the specific material on caricature - but those are precisely the bits that are original research. This reads much more like a research essay - with references to relevant theorists supporting the writer's own research on the topic - rather than an encyclopedia entry. WJ94 (talk) 08:56, 19 October 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 114th Illinois Infantry Regiment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal & The 114th, 1861 to 1865[edit]

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

Appears in a few general bibliographies such as "A Bibliography of Illinois Civil War Regimental Sources in the Illinois State Historical Library: Part I, Published and Printed Sources" (Illinois Historical Journal, 1994) and this, and it's cited a few times, but none of those things contribute any actual coverage to this book. Found no reviews on JSTOR, Project MUSE, EBSCO, or ProQuest. Appearances in bibliographies without even a comment on the book and the fact that it's cited don't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG; it exists but it isn't notable. Hog Farm _Talk 02:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Military, and Illinois. Hog Farm _Talk 02:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as a new section at the end) to 114th Illinois Infantry Regiment. This is apparently a regimental history of that Civil War regiment, so that the article on it is an appropriate merge target for a book that is clearly not independently notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a second time just to see if there is more feedback on a possible merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Peterkingiron. Not notable on its own, but could be worth noting with the regiment. Intothat darkness 17:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little bit of digging, and it appears this book is more of a collection of stories from the newspaper mentioned in the title and genealogical stuff and not exactly a formal history of the regiment. The author may have been related to a member, explaining his interest but not contributing to notability. Intothat darkness 17:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Pinnell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Seems non-notable. Was deleted in a prior AfD but recreated. I removed a list of patents with bogus references.~~ RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 33 papers with more than 100 cites on GS passes WP:Prof#C1 even in this highly cited field. See second AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: per WP:PROF. He held a named professorship and his work was highly cited. This was already discussed in the second AfD and on the talkpage... TJMSmith (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and North Carolina. TJMSmith (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Named professor easily passes WP:NPROF. Curbon7 (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. Vague nomination statement doesn't even address or attempt to refute the clear case for notability made in AFD 2 or indicate why anything might have changed since then. More, it's outright misleading by summarizing only the outcome of AFD 1 and giving the false impression that this was the only outcome of past AFDs. And its claim of "bogus references" appears to merely be that the official US patent database changed its url format and turned previously-valid references into deadlinks, although I agree with the removal of the indiscriminate patent listing. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A Scopus h-index of 44 with over 7,000 citations for work done in the pre-Web era would probably be enough for criterion 1 of the academics wiki-notability guideline, and the named professorship qualifies for criterion number 5. The nomination presents a partial and misleading picture of the prior deletion-discussion history, since the second go-around included arguments for passing multiple criteria of the relevant guideline and ended with the nominator withdrawing. All in all, I think the No accurate deletion rationale has been provided clause of the speedy-keep conditions has been met. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 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 23:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Type 999 buoy tender[edit]

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

Insignificant coverage. Source is a product listing of - I think - the cooking equipment manufacturer, which is unlikely to be the source of much of the article's content. Does not seem to appear in either Janes FIghting Ships 2015-2016 or 16 ed. of The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World. Googling does not turn up anything other than Wikipedia or republishers. Cursory search of the WP Library also does not bring up anything. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, and China. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this might be one of my favorite AfDs in a long time. I was able to find some mentions of this boat online but there isn't a lot in english. If someone can find something in Chinese and help translate I would be willing to change my vote to keep but as it stands now it's not notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:34, 8 October 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!} 03:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable, possibly an unattributed translation. The deprod rationale of "this is linked from a lot of articles" is garbage as all the links are from a single navbox. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 15 October 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 Ligue Nationale du Football Amateur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ES Tighennif[edit]

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

Failing WP:NTEAM. Google searches did not show notability. Some search result indicate played matches, but nothing really notable. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ligue Nationale du Football Amateur. Giant Snowman 11:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ligue Nationale du Football Amateur as an ATD. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:59, 21 October 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 Air gun. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of air guns[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Unsourced crufty list. dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Lists. dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I attempted to PROD this list, but it was AfD'd in 2011. dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Need to decide if this is a list of air guns notable enough to have their own articles such as those listed at Category:Air guns or a list of air guns and air gun manufacturers as it is now. Valid navigational and information list. Dream Focus 12:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Ovinus has removed quite a bit of cruft from the list, though I will not yet withdraw this nomination due to the lack of !votes. dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Air gun – after cleaning up a bit, I am still unconvinced this list serves any greater purpose than does Category:Air guns. No sources have been exhibited which compare air guns in depth, as would contribute to notability in the spirit of WP:NLIST. I'd especially like to see sources other than product reviews and "top 10 air guns"-type lists, as those don't seem significant. Ovinus (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air gun - nothing in this list serves a purpose that isn't handled by the category.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:42, 22 October 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!} 07:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedal pumping[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am alarmed by the extremely poor quality of this article, and the fact that a previous discussion as long ago as 2006 highlighted its fundamentally unencyclopedic nature and the various issues with it, which have not yet been fixed. As it stands, there are egregious violations of some or all of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CITE, and possibly WP:NPOV, and the tone of the language used is inappropriately chatty/informal for an encyclopedia article. The fact that roughly nothing has been done to address these issues in 16 years is quite concerning. At a bare minimum, it needs a complete rewrite with proper sourcing; I'd propose that it's deleted in its current form, and any information worth keeping can simply be moved to a dedicated subsection on foot fetishism. Yes, many other articles on fetishes exist, but this does not mean that every fetish needs to have its own article – not least because there is significant overlap between the details of individual fetishes and the membership of the communities of people who practice them. Some are so obscure there is little point in documenting them, at least as distinct from other more common fetishes. I once spoke to a guy on Grindr who had a highly specific fetish for synthetic fleeces – do we need an article for that too? Archon 2488 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and not transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any RS for this, nor do I care to venture down this rabbit hole. Just do a Google search yourself, but be warned, it's getting weird. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The Independent source is reasonable, but is not independent from the Daily Beast source. Unable to find anything in journal sources, which would confer legitimacy to it as a notable or otherwise-encyclopedic fetish, rather than merely one of the cornucopia of fetishes found in the depths of the interwebs. Clears search history Ovinus (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should also clear my search history. The one time I'll get in trouble for using wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned, unlinked, unsectioned, draft-quality mess with not even bare minimum notability provided. I didn’t look for sources because it’s already been done by others and there’s nothing here to salvage per wp:tnt Dronebogus (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written, fails WP:GNG Fifthapril (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking GNG based on my searches. Re nom: Foot fetishism would be an OK redirect target (attested to in doi:10.1080/23268743.2016.1259963), though there's at least one source that mentions it in the context of mechanophilia [7], so my preference is to delete without redirecting. Urve (talk) 22:36, 15 October 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 Facilitated communication. As an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canon Communicator[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP. Rationalle is (from talk page) This article doesn't describe what the device actually does, its reference is not accessible, and it seems to be very low importance. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this small bit of text can probably be merged somewhere. BD2412 T 01:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. It is mentioned at Facilitated communication, so could be redirected there ATD, but I don't know if merging this information there is appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 22 October 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!} 01:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Simm[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL. Being a candidate and member of the party does not confer any notability. He has not been elected to any position in the Swedish general election. I didn't see enough coverage to justify notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sweden. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I understand the sources correctly, his main political role wouldn't have been as a candidate for Alternativ för Sverige, but serving at the municipal council in Uppsala in some capacity, although the sources for this don't seem to indicate anything beyond the fact that he did attend a meeting at some point. Either way, neither municipal councils nor being an unelected candidate meet our inclusion criteria. I have tried to find sources to see if this biography could be saved by meeting WP:GNG in some other way but failed. /Julle (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources consist of routine campaign 'news', primary sources and passing mentions, none of which meets WP:GNG; and as unelected, fails WP:NPOL as well. (Incidentally, this is one of many similar recent ones, so I expect AfD will be busy with these.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, having taken a look at the Alternative for Sweden biographies, I guess it might prove difficult to how live up to either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL for Andreas Feymark, Evelina Hahne, Yvonne Lindholm, Per Sefastsson and Sven Valerio. /Julle (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability at this point. I understand the creation of the article, but clearly the subject is not within notability.BabbaQ (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Fifthapril (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the ~~non-~~independent sourcing is way too weak. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 31 sources which are far more than needed. He is one of the most famous candidates for the party nationally and is the leader of the party in Skåne County. Suffolkshire (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Suffolkshire, and welcome to Wikipedia. That is not quite how it works, I'm afraid. The pure number of sources says very little in itself. Wikipedia is a publication, and as other publications it has norms around what it wants to publish. Over the years, the Wikipedian concept of notability has been quanitifed (bureaucratized, some would claim), to avoid a conversation about what an encyclopedia is and should be in every conversation about inclusion and inclusivity. If you read WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, you'll see that there are certain criteria English Wikipedia uses when it tries to assess articles, and this biography is rather far away from meeting them. It is, of course, possible to question these criteria, and I would describe Wikipedia as constantly being in the process of defining and re-definting itself, but be aware that they build on more than twenty years of discussions between thousands of Wikipedians. They are not easily changed now. /Julle (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and a candidate gets to have an article only if either (a) he was already notable enough for an article for other reasons as it is, or (b) the article can demonstrate a credible case for why his candidacy should be seen as much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies. But neither of those things are in evidence here — and just because there are 31 footnotes does not mean that there are 31 notability-building sources for the purposes of WP:GNG, because the clear majority of those 31 footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his own LinkedIn and content self-published by his own party. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither NPOL or GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:37, 22 October 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!} 00:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia Pub[edit]

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

This is NOT a notable business. Please see the history for the content and sources I just removed--they contain such trivia as "there was outdoor dining during COVID" and cite books like this commercial/promotional publication. There really is no in-depth sourcing from anything above the local level. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and California. TJMSmith (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely nothing I found meets WP:ORGCRIT that isn't local press. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another generic local business with only routine coverage and minor listicle mentions in local news. It's not encylopedic to catalogue brief local event listings like [8] or the fact that bars host karaoke or put sports on TV. It's likewise inappropriate to copy the entirety of a travel guide's two-sentence review: sure this is one of 24 bars and pubs catalogued in it, but we're not here to collate that sort of short, routine listing. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has been bombed with references. Even though many of the references are highly reliable, the coverage is not significant. Much coverage contains only a trivial passing mention. Insufficient to meet the subject specific notability guideline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:37, 22 October 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. It's a Weak Keep but Keep it is. Article in need of improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Zinser[edit]

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

Un notable actress. Not many third party sources in article and none found online. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Washington, D.C.. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete: Source #1 just has random quotes from the subject; barely says anything about her. Source #2 does verify the statement that it's supporting, but doesn't show WP:SIGCOV and doesn't justify the article. I also couldn't find any other sources. Only 7/12 films she's acted in (though they might be notable) have articles, and in only two of those does she star. She's also only had one recurring/main performance in a show. I suppose, if one looks at the bare minimum, she just barely passes WP:NACTOR (which is why this is just a soft delete). However, when looking at the GNG, it doesn't exactly work, based on the definitions provided. Asparagusus (interaction) 00:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject appeared in 60 episodes of 90210 (this source evidences her role in the show), and had either main or supporting roles in The Truth Below, Liars All, The Guilty and Smile, for which she at least gets passing mentions in sources like The Hollywood Reporter and The Los Angeles Times (here). So while the material to make out WP:GNG is a bit slim, she has had significant enough roles in notable productions to meet WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of these movies are not notable as they have not won any awards and widely covered. Smile is not a main role. Plus, she doesn't have a lot of third party coverage. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. She gets a mention in The New York Times review of Smile, so clearly part of the main cast; even if not one of largest parts. She was part of the main cast of 90210 for two seasons (verified in this book). It's enough to squeak by NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep very mild keep, just barely notable with the sources shown above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per 4meter4. Moresdi (talk) 15:22, 21 October 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!} 00:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Zijian[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Google shows nothing about him in the first page. The article has 0 references. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm on the fence here.~~ Keep. Province-level governors (particularly in a province of tens of millions of people), would normally be fairly automatic for notability. Of course, we would need to be able to prove that they really were governor of the province purported. BD2412 T 01:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source for his obituary, which is substantially two lists of prominent individuals expressing condolences, but does verify he held the appointments the article claims he did: [9] The nominator may consider taking the step of copypasting the subject's name into their search, rather than the pinyin transileration, as the actual name returns many results. The article subject is in two navboxes; seems silly to turn him back into a redlink just due to inadequate sourcing. 97.115.133.247 (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable as governor of a Chinese province. Obituary here. He appears in a directory here. Another source at 1. For such a senior figure there will be plenty of sources in Chinese, which I can’t read. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the governor of a Chinese province, so he has the same inherent notability as the former governor of say, the state of Missouri. I've added in one reference from the Chinese Wikipedia article on him, an obituary that states that former Chinese presidents and premiers, among others, attended his funeral and offered condolences. The article and sourcing should certainly still be improved, but hopefully this is at least enough to satisfy this AfD. --Danaman5 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear NPOL pass based on the sources found by Mccapra. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:20, 15 October 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!} 00:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AssMazing[edit]

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

Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NSONG. Please feel free to include puns in this discussion :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Jamaica. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete colour me surprised, nothing for sourcing found. I mean, you get photos of the thing the song is about, not much of anything about the song. Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not show anything substantial in terms of information. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline or subject specific guideline at NSONG MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:57, 16 October 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!} 00:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rules-of-Renovation[edit]

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

This just seems like a promotional article for some minor non-notable "slideshow" on real estate. I thought it was like a TV program but it just seems to be a bunch of real estate presentations, which has no notability. There are no notable/reliable sources used. The main website about this program is dead. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it was a TV program of sorts, but whatever it was, it's dead. Nothing turns up in Google that we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:31, 15 October 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.