Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 18	April 20 >

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 . Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Children in Scotland

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

No coverage to meet WP:ORG. Search for old name yields nothing in gnews, and only 1 line mentions in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; 9 results in a google news search with quotes and only one covers the organization, which just documents that Established Titles made a donation to them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Scotland. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Parliamentary records show some use being made of documents produced by this organisation: Lord Mackay in a 1998 House of Lords debate [1]; Mark McDonald in a 2012 Scottish Parliament debate [2]. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily a significant enough organisation to have an article. Plenty of coverage, if nothing major. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"a significantly enough organisation" is not a criterion for notability. It needs to meet WP:ORG. As InvadingInvader states above (any my own search) a search does not come up with sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, if you have found coverage on this organization, do you mind listing some of them? From my search, I have not found any WP:SIGCOV so I am leaning towards deletion since it does not meet WP:GNG. Carpimaps (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11 days after Necrothesp's vote, they still haven't provided any sources. LibStar (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and ORG WP:SIRS. Source eval:

Fails IS, and SIGCOV, simply states "Children in Scotland is the national agency for voluntary, statutory and professional organisations and individuals working with children and their families in Scotland." >> 1. "Scottish Childcare - Information Services to help you find childcare in Scotland". Scottish Family Information Service. Archived from the original on 10 October 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2012. Children in Scotland is the national agency for voluntary, statutory and professional organisations and individuals working with children and their families in Scotland.
Interview, fails IS >> 2. ^ Cunningham, Jennifer (2 January 2012). "People think good policies happen almost by magic". HeraldScotland. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
Routine news >> 3. ^ Page, Front. "Children in Scotland Convenor steps down from role". Children in Scotland. Retrieved 18 January 2021.

BEFORE didn't show anything that meets WP:SIRS, and the above mentioned sources are not SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question: the Scottish Government cites publications written by "Children in Scotland" in their documents. Since this presumably means that the Scottish Government note their work, doesn't that show some level of notability? What do you think? JMWt (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this can be used to establish notability; per WP:INHERITORG, organizations do not inherit notability by merely being associated with something or someone notable. The fact that they are cited by a national government also does not constitute significant coverage, especially if it's just in reference to specific figures or data points. For clarity, where do they cite these publications? Actualcpscm (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're cited here 1 - it's in Gaelic but in terms of referencing it is clear that reference 22 is from the organisation in question. I'm sure there is an equivalent document in English but I haven't bothered looking for it if it isn't relevant.

With reference to your comment, I'm not sure this is a situation of "inherited notability" - whilst they might be said to be associated with the Scottish government, it is also true that the Scottish government have chosen to take notice of their publications. I'll be interested to hear views of others. JMWt (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have said, it lacks sigcov in independent sources. Per WP:NGO, the national scope of their activities does not per se establish notability. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Caliber Comics#Selected titles. ✗plicit 03:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oz (comics)

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

PRODded by BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs) with with concern issues not addressed for between 6 and 15 years; nothing to suggest notability, only external link is dead, lots of OR/NPOV, possible out-of-date information, then deprodded by StarTrekker (talk · contribs) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues not addressed for between 6 and 15 years; nothing to suggest notability, only external link is dead, lots of OR/NPOV, possible out-of-date information. ~~Either Delete or if some sources can be found possibly Merge with Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz.~~ BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caliber Comics#Selected titles, where it is already listed. I am finding pretty much nothing regarding this comic, let alone coverage in reliable sources. I would not be in favor in a merge to Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz, as this just does not appear to be a notable enough adaptation to be mentioned there. Rorshacma (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caliber Comics#Selected titles. Hiding T 12:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote for consensus - Redirect to Caliber Comics#Selected titles. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Criminal Investigation Department (Ireland). ✗plicit 12:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free State Intelligence Department – Oriel House

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Criminal Investigation Department (Ireland). I'd just redirect it, but its an improbable redirect. There doesn't seem to be any content worth saving, since its basically all original research. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Criminal Investigation Department (Ireland). I've long had concerns with the tone/referencing/OR/NPOV/essay-style of this "article". However, and while I understand the nom's concern about the plausibility of the redirect title, I'd recommend redirecting. On the basis that deletion isn't cleanup, redirects are (relatively) cheap, and someone (though goodness knows who and heaven knows [based on the impenetrable "referencing"] how anyone would do so) might be able to rescue at least some of the original content. If deleted, that won't be as readily achieved.... Guliolopez (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Passions#Cast. ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Passions characters

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

Unsourced list. Pure fancruft. Has been PRODed and endorsed, but PROD was reverted by an IP editor on the basis of being "inaccurate," w/ no other explanation. Proceeding to AfD. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Due to the lack of reliable sources establishing WP:Notability. LemonberryPie (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a list of X characters is notable if X is notable, this is just a WP:SS spinout article; it could be merged back to the series article, but that makes no sense due to size. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summary splits are still required to meet notability requirements. Just because something is split does not mean it gets a pass on meeting guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 19:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! – Deleting would be a horrible idea as soap operas have way too many characters to include in the main article. Worst case scenario it can be *merged* it to main series and then in the summer I will work a lot on sourcing it, but for now please do not delete it. I feel like a lot of soap opera articles are unfairly targeted. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how do you address the issue of notability? This is not a fan tribute site, nor a directory. There are requirements and guidelines to be met, as outlined in WP:LISTCRITERIA. Your argument sounds more like WP:PPOV or WP:PLEASEDONT. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passions#Cast - This is pretty much just a cast list, and the main article already has a very detailed cast list of all of the major characters. The characters that are not already listed on the main article's section already appear to just be very minor characters, making this a somewhat redundant spinout article. Many of the blue-linked entries are just circular links back to this same list, and the characters that actually do have independent articles are already also linked to from the main character list on the show's main page, making this not too much use for navigational purposes either. Rorshacma (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passions#Cast. There is scope for it to be improved with sourcing. I would suggest for DaniloDaysOfOurLives to work on it in a sandbox/draftspace so that it can be reinstated as an improved article eventually. – Meena • 14:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The content of this article would be way better to include in existing article rather than keeping it as a separate one as I take it. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the cast as a better target. Most of this isn't supported by reliable third party sources. I might agree with other editors that some elements could be merged, but very selectively based on reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passions#Cast per above. Article fails LISTN and serves no WP:CLN AOAL role. // Timothy :: talk 04:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passions#Cast per above. There are a few references but I don't think the density is sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice the keep votes all focus on the notability of the individual characters, where WP:NLIST recommends judging notability on whether the items are notable as a group. Examining the idea of "group notability" logically justifies the need for a list and avoids the trap of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I would challenge those who vote "keep" to justify their vote on the basis of notability as a group. On a related note, most of the individual character articles have their own notability challenges, which we may wish to address once this AfD has run its course.Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to stop WP:badgering. You have already posted a response to one of the keep arguments above. The above comment is unnecessary. Just let a consensus be reached, and I am sure the editor who will close this AfD will look through everything and judge it fairly either way. There is no need to "challenge" editors to provide more explanation for their decisions. Also, individual character articles are not relevant to this discussion, which should be focused on the list up for discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not badgering anyone. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the page is improved since the nomination; it is no longer entirely unsourced and the circular wikilinks for minor characters have been removed. But there is still no prose content whatsoever, and the table on the main article for Passions#Cast covers the same topic better. This is purely an editorial opinion; if articles such as Timmy Lenox were merged here, I would vote keep. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The keep votes have still not addressed LISTN or shown sources that this meets LISTN. Keep votes all boil down to ILIKEIT which is an invalid reason to keep an article, or trying to claim the list is notable because mentions exist in sources for some entries. // Timothy :: talk 19:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passions#Cast, which has an adequate list of key characters which makes this List of Passions characters redundant in its current form. I've removed my previous comments to not confuse the issue. The circular redirects have been removed and some sources added, but this list needs to be reinvented in the standard character list format, like List of Dynasty (2017 TV series) characters, or List of The Mandalorian characters (Featured List).— TAnthony^Talk 16:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passions#Cast.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kowshik Saha

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

Fails notability guidelines for musicians. It was created by an account with a possible COI. The sources used in the article are terrible and demonstrate an absolute lack of coverage in reliable sources. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Bibliographies, Bangladesh, and India. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some good sources like allmusic.com and edm.com which is a top media house for music were used. Are they not reliable? Brosnan21 (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid deletion given and seems like a clear keep anyway. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love Again (film)

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

Reason Anogen78 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid deletion given and seems like a clear keep anyway. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love Again

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

Reason Anogen78 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid deletion given and seems like a clear keep anyway. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fast X

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

Reason Anogen78 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriy Esaulov

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

Yuriy Esaulov

Association football player who does not satisfy general notability. This article was draftified once by User:Onel5969, and has been moved back to article space with minimal improvement. This article has been tagged for notability three times by User: Anwegmann and Onel5969, and the tags have been removed twice. An article should speak for itself, but this article says nothing about significant coverage of the subject. The references appear to be database entries, and a reader should not be expected to check the references to see whether third parties have written about the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed: No in-depth coverage, and it does not come close to fulfilling the basic standards for notability. Anwegmann (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There doesn't appear to be any online Ukrainian-language SIGCOV; the best thing I found was a story and interview about his ex-wife in ГАРТ (a Chernihiv-based newspaper) which briefly mentions him. I'll try Azerbaijani sources next. Jogurney (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a long way until the article meets WP:GNG guidelines. Other than this, I suggest this being removed for insufficient notability which is only confirmed once more when looking at the sources. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was unable to find enough sources with WP:SIGCOV of the subject to establish notability. The subject currently fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Existing sources are WP:PRIMARY or WP:ROUTINE coverage, so they do not establish notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - creator is now pblocked from mainspace for disruptive creations/lacking the English language competence to edit here. Star Mississippi 19:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Rudenko

AfDs for this article:

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

Oleksandr Rudenko

Association football player who does not satisfy general notability. This article was draftified once, and has been moved back to article space with minimal improvement. An article should speak for itself, but this article says nothing about significant coverage of the subject. The references appear to be database entries, and a reader should not be expected to check the references to see whether third parties have written about the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - creator has WP:REFBOMBed 18 refs from stats sites and non-independent sources and 5 ELs to try to give an illusion that the subject is notable but he still fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG as he did last time we discussed him. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - creator WP:REFBOMBing the article with sources that do not meet IS RS SIGCOV demonstrates the lack of sources showing notability for subject. // Timothy :: talk 06:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - significant use of WP:REFBOMBing from non-reliable stats sites. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 19:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Gomes

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

This is another apparently run-of-the-mill California state court judge. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 18:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. BD2412 T 18:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kartikay Saini

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

Appears to be non-notable. Creation by likely sockmaster. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Multiple previous attempts to create this article by one of the likely socks User talk:Rftaar759. Valereee (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G5. Created by an obvious WP:SOCK -- Wesoree ^(T·C) 16:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and might be G5able -- Wesoree ^(T·C) 16:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Lacks notability. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Maharashtra, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

https://www.specialolympics.org/about/board-of-directors/cdr-kartikay-saini is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Bio from the Special Olympics' website, which he sits on the BoD of.
https://www.forbesindia.com/article/global-indian-business-leaders/an-audacious-ambition/53255/1 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Explicitly labeled as "Brand Connect", i.e. written on his behalf/commissioned by him.
https://educationtoday.co/blogs/?p=17523 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Clearly written by the subject, as it's in first-person.
https://www.forbesindia.com/education-evangelists-of-india/humanitarian-with-a-vision/19 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview.

Nothing here is any good, and a Google search turns up nothing better (string: "kartikay saini"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 22:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russell de Mel

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

Fails WP:GNG Bexaendos (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bexaendos (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are available references, confirming that de Mel has been a executive member on a number of boards of Sri Lankan companies, including the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director at National Development Bank. However none of these establish that he is a notable individual. All of the sources that I have been locate are just 'mentions in passing' - nothing that establishes he has done any notable achievements - he is just another successful Sri Lankan businessman. Dan arndt (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A search shows minimal mentions with no notable coverage in reliable publications to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samla Mammas Manna

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

Unsourced since at least 2012. Has an AllMusic bio and a handful of reviews from the same, but I don't see anything else. Unless we wanna just assume this band was getting covered all the time in the Scandinavian press but none of that has been digitized and I can't find any of it, then I'm not seeing any other coverage and don't see notability met here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Måltid. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Samla Mammas Manna are a pretty important piece of Swedish music history. There's a long-ish article in Göteborgs-Posten from 1994 ("Nu Samlas Mammas Manna – bandet uppstår i lyckliga stunder"), where they are referred to as "the legendary 70s band". w:sv:Dan Backman referred to them as "one of the flagships of Swedish progressive rock" in a review in 1999, and so on. They were mainly active in the 70s, but a newspaper archive like w:sv:Mediearkivet which mainly has material from the 2000s, and some from the 90s, still give 439 hits in print media. If I understand correctly, Håkan Lagher's 1999 book Proggen : musikrörelsens uppgång och fall also writes about them, but I don't have the book and can't verify. Anyway: I've started adding basic sourcing, more can be done, I'm of the strong opinion that this article should be kept. /Julle (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. Glad you came along. I'm not familiar with Mediearkivet but if there's really that many hits already then there's probably gotta be more of value out there than I would have access to. Assuming you're going to continue sorting through those and bulking this article up, then I'm willing to withdraw this immediately. Thanks! QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a paid service and only available in Swedish, so most people don't have access to it, but most staff or students at a Swedish university ought to have access, and Wikimedia Sweden has paid for access for Wikipedians who need it. /Julle (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; also noting that the All Music Guide reviews are editorial, not user-submitted, and thus count toward WP:NMUSIC. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Swedish band that is very influential in the worldwide progressive rock community (not just locally in Sweden). Klausness (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to K-pop#Latin America briefly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K-pop in Latin America

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

This article reads more like a personal essay than an encyclopedic entry. Even then, I do not think this topic merits inclusion in Wikipedia. I can't recall any articles off the top of my head that goes into genres by country. Since K-pop is a global phenomena, the information here is probably better included in the article on K-pop rather than on a separate page. Also WP:NOR - this appears to be original synthesis interpreting articles than providing sourced analysis. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This topic is appropriate under the K-pop article (where it already sits). The page itself is inappropriate for a full article and would fit better as a personal website. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Latin America. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article feels like it should have been South Korean–Latin American relations but someone left the window open and their K-Pop fan kid decided to finish it up with details about their music instead. Nate • (chatter) 22:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or very selective merge into K-pop#Latin America -- there are secondary sources discussing K-pop in Latin America as a distinct phenomenon (#328, #329, #330 in the main K-pop page, #1 here), but most of the information unique to this article is synthesizing trivia. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MergeI agree with Gnomingstuff for their suggestion very selective merge. It fits to be merged with K-pop particularly merge with "Popularity and impact" section after filtering unnecessarily details. Lililolol (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with K-pop#Latin American: As there are sourced information that are suitable for the main K-pop article Lightoil (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal elections in Ababuj

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

WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Electoral record for a single-person council in a place with a current population of seventy-seven. We can debate how big or notable a place has to be to have a spin-off article about its politics (1M? 100K? 10K?), but it's probably not a place as populated as a rather busy subway carriage. No opposition to putting this material on the main village article, with sources of course, or simply just the list of mayors if it's overkill to consider the entire voting history of this little place Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Spain. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Real Situation Saturday. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Junior Full House

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2015.

PROD removed with "try AfD" and zero improvements. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Junior filmography#Television, where it is mentioned. Coverage, even in Korean, is scarce. ✗plicit 02:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Real Situation Saturday. The only secondary discussion of the program I could find was [3]. :3 F4U (they /it) 03:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Real Situation Saturday sounds more fitting, so if nobody disagrees i would start merging!

Lililolol (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lililolol wait till the AFD closes with the result is merge before merging. Lightoil (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Real Situation Saturday: As there is material suitable for a merge. Lightoil (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Samla Mammas Manna. ✗plicit 14:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Måltid

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM. It has been redirected to the band multiple times, but was reverted on the grounds that "according to WP:NALBUM AllMusic is considered reliable", which is untrue. The guideline does say, however, that "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography", which is the outcome I am requesting. – bradv 13:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Seeing nothing aside from AllMusic. Same goes for the band so I also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samla Mammas Manna. If that ends up kept then redirect this there instead. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Julle's work, this already looks far more promising. This could turn into a WP:HEY if someone had access to those older newspapers mentioned below. And given the same work done for the band article, that's certain to stay now. Redirect for now until more coverage is located. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pretty certain this would easily pass if we had proper access to non-digitized sources. For example, it's one of the pieces of Swedish culture which w:sv:Tusen svenska klassiker ranks as one of the "1 000 Swedish books, films, albums and television shows from 1956 to 2009" the authors considers to be classics; this particular entry written by w:sv:Jan Gradvall. It's mentioned in the newspaper archive I've got access to (w:sv:Mediearkivet), but all the proper reviews are of course fifty years old and not digitized. /Julle (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that references do not have to be available on line. If you have legitimate references, you can feel free to add them even if they are only available in paper form in libraries or archives. Klausness (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect. Band is clearly notable. Keep if album meets criteria in WP:NALBUM (and it sounds like it probably does), otherwise redirect to band page. Klausness (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . (non-admin closure) feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nititad Promotion

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

NN record label UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Thailand. UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:JNN argument without substantiation. Historically one of the largest record labels in Thailand, as attested by the Billboard piece cited in the article. More in-depth coverage very likely exists in pre-Internet Thai news sources, in addition to the Siamdara magazine article cited in Thwiki[4], mention in this Thammasat Journal of History article[5], and this Krtungthep Turakij article about its current business[6]. This 1994 TV Digest magazine article about the rift among its key people, reproduced in this forum post[7], is an example of the level of coverage it had in the day. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was subjected to an unwarranted level of abuse in the process of its creation; it was draftified, nommed for speedy, prodded, and now AfD'ed. Sometimes people are trying to tell you something when they create an article, folks. Chubbles (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul 012, and it is not clear that the sources in the article fail GNG. Third largest label in a large sovereign nation? That seems a very high indication of notability to me. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to House (season 7)#Episodes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last Temptation (House)

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

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that has only 1 RS reviews found. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House (season 7)#Episodes per WP:ATD. The episode is mentioned there. ✗plicit 14:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House (season 7)#Episodes per Explicit as a valid WP:ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frédérique Feder

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

Non notable actress. Poor resources. BostonMensa (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BostonMensa (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - not a single reliable source. Never mind WP:BLP and WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to House (season 5)#Episodes. ✗plicit 14:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joy to the World (House)

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

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House (season 5)#Episodes Per my vote! for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massage Therapy (House), but this time there isn't even one source for the article. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Without sources giving it notability, it would be better to redirect to Season 5 LemonberryPie (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . ✗plicit 14:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Goose Produce

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

Disputed PROD. Article is about a run-of-the-mill farmstand with no significant coverage outside of the local region; the sources found outside of the area are passing mentions in a travel piece about the county as a whole. Attempts to find articles in other regional newspapers (Portland and Vancouver, B.C.) did not yield results. Doesn't pass the WP:NCORP sniff test in my view. Sounder Bruce 04:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 04:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Snow Goose Produce has received significant coverage in multiple national, independent, reliable secondary sources in addition to its local/regional citations.

National magazine Sunset wrote a full article on the business and described it as "the farmstand of all farmstands".
The market was rated the No. 1 "Best Roadside Stand" in the country by national magazine Martha Stewart Living.
The Detroit Free Press citation is not a "passing mention"; around 1/2 of the article is directly dedicated to Snow Goose Produce. The Michigan-based writer uses the farm stand as the framing for her entire Skagit Valley travel article and describes the market as "the best metaphor for this earnestly rural region".

PK-WIKI (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit Free Press article has five paragraphs related to the stand, not "around 1/2". The Sunset article is a short listicle, and the MSL article (which I cannot access) is probably of the same vein. Frankly, it'd have to be an extremely special farmstand to warrant an article; there's no obvious sign that it is. Sounder Bruce 06:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not counting the article's lead or ending, both of which are dedicated to this notable farm stand.

11/19 of the indented or bolded paragraphs are about Snow Goose Produce... over half.

PK-WIKI (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five paragraphs is SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge For all this is, we can merge into the Fir Island article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . ✗plicit 14:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Residence Hall Association (University of Florida)

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

Despite the plethora of sources, they are all mostly primary sources. And yes the student newspaper of the university is a primary source. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article by all means has sufficient sources that are not from the student newspaper, including newspapers and outlets from across Florida and the United States. The Lakeland Ledger, Boca Rotan News, WUFT-FM, Gainesville Sun, Sarasota Tribune, Daily Orange, and Baltimore Afro-American all are cited. Most of which, with articles that discuss the organization in a decent amount of depth, beyond the single-sentence mentions that WP:ORGCRIT seeks to avoid.

Additionally, the Independent Florida Alligator is no longer associated with the University of Florida anyways. While it can be argued that a student newspaper is a primary source, the Alligator has been independent and unassociated with the University of Florida since 1973, and while considered a largely "student-run" paper, is an independent local newspaper. With all sources coming after that date, clearly and unarguably being secondary sources. I would, personally additionally argue, considering that student papers, including the Alligator, are generally editorially independent from their respective colleges, it should be considered a secondary source prior to this date as well. That's even the reason the Alligator became independent, they were exercising their editorial privileges and the university attempted to intervene. Subsequently, resulting in a tension between the university and paper, and its withdraw from being an official student paper of the college anyways.

I would also ask someone that has more knowledge in source assessment: do other agencies of the same larger institution typically count as primary sources or secondary sources anyways? The notion that comes to mind is the example of: what if an editor cites the U.S. Forest Service in an article about NASA, both are independent of each other, but are both organizations within the larger institution of the federal government. Is this citation considered primary or secondary? At that point, are they even considered to be related organizations to each other? This would be similar to the given circumstance: the Inter-Residence Hall Association is only directly cited a handful of times, though other agencies of the university (arguably including Florida Alligator articles prior to 1973) are cited additional times. Again, I am unsure about this last notion and could use someone more knowledgeable outside myself or the nominator for assistance on that question.

Regardless of this, the article certainly has enough external sources to prove notability. If the suggestion is that additional secondary citations are required for verification, I could almost understand, especially if we are not counting the Florida Alligator prior to 1973. However, given the previously mentioned in-depth coverage from newspapers across the state and country where the organization is organization is based, I would argue that the Inter-Residence Hall Association quite clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG by having multiple reliable secondary sources that are unarguably independent of the subject. -Navarre0107 (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More in-depth sources from news outlets and papers across the state have also been added since the creation of this AfD.-Navarre0107 (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:GNG can't be assessed, a redirect to University of Florida will always be better than a deletion regardless of the material. – The Grid (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article has been deleted per WP:G5. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Veslocki

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

Was draftified by M.Ashraf333, then returned to mainspace without any substantive improvement (the addition of a single primary source). Not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. If the Grammy nomination was true, that would qualify. But it's uncited in the article, and a search of the Grammy database doesn't bring up any matches for Veslocki. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has been included in AfD discussions about topics connected to Sweden. I figure the "Swedish-Italian" might be more of a heritage thing than him actually being active in Sweden; I can't find any mentions at all in Swedish media. /Julle (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz Show Q

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

Does not appear notable, found nothing except a few blurbs about the hosts not hearing about the cancellation until after the fact. Tagged for notability since 2013. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and could not find much significant coverage searching Google and Naver searching in both English and Korean. Furthermore, it is sourced only by Allkpop which is considered unreliable per WP:KO/RS#UR Lightoil (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michelle Chang (Tekken)

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

The result was Withdrawn. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 07:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just like Craig Marduk, she also seems to be lacking WP:sigcov. No actual commentary from reliable sources about her being a Native American besides a book Promoting and Preserving Indigenous Languages and Cultures in the Americas Through Video Games. Most of her content were trivial nor listicles also. Failing WP:GNG. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your example source is a pretty good example of coverage showing real-world importance. If any more sources can be founds I'd be leaning more towards keep. Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that; as long as it's not a passing mention or listicles, I'm happy to withdraw this if found more. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[8] "Representation of Native Americans: From Literature to Video Games" (Google it, file is said to have a security risk so I won't link it here). Keep, and please stop making these AfD nominations. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- [9] [10] [11] Seriously, this run of AfDs is bordering on disruptive, and the only benefit is if you really want to exhaust people into no longer wanting to fight to keep them. A discussion could have been had to determine whether Michelle Chang fulfilled notability standards instead. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Abryn/MsDusa. That's your only opinion. Most of them were closed as merge. Only Reptile or possibly this could survive. Not disruptive enough yet but I'll admit I disruptively confirm Julia Chang and this as not notable before even I discovered the native american books. Was gonna withdraw but one user below disagreed with it and also CBR can't be used for notability purpose. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I didn't search for these sources, this would likely be closed as being merged. That's my point - instead of doing due diligence, you're rushing articles to merging or deletion as if you have a deadline to meet. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yeah, I'm a little surprised here. You'd think a lesser known Tekken character like Michelle wouldn't get the coverage, but it looks like she has. I guess her being Native American, just like Julia, helps. In addition to the sources Cukie Gherkin brought up, there's also this. MoonJet (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Tekken characters. Sorry, but I am left unconvinced by the presented sources. They seem like the most blatant attempt to make people believe WP:RS exist when Google has just been skimmed for passing mentions of the character. If not, please explain exactly how much of each source is devoted to discussing this character specifically. I am only seeing single sentences and captions with each of these. I would also note CBR is a "content farm" style site in the manner of GameRant which has been trotted out again and again with these AfDs. Additionally, WP:NOTAGAIN arguments should be off limits until it is actually proven that the AfDs are facing overwhelming consensus they are incorrect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the sources straight up discusses Michelle Chang in detail for three pages. If that is your definition of passing mention, I feel deeply skeptical of your judgment. The alternative explanation is that you ironically only skimmed the sources linked instead of ensuring that they were actually "passing mentions." In which case, I would ask that you be more diligent in formulating your arguments before you make them.
- Also, I didn't propose WP:NOTAGAIN, I expressed my ire that editors are rushing articles through the AfD process for no reason and risking merging notable subjects due to their needlessly scattershot approach. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I apologize if I was being overly harsh in my assessment there. I am very used to such tactics being used, especially when the content of the sources is not actually noted and several links are listed one after the other, but I admit my error that the first source does seem to be significant coverage for Julia/Michelle Chang. While this doesn't change my !vote in this instance, I insinuated it contained no significant coverage, which was a mistake caused by my belief the source stopped before it actually did. That said, it was not a bad faith attempt to hide legitimate sources, just a mistake. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaliy Arinin

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

Another contested draftification with zero improvement. Not a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable, secondary source. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in the article that establishes general notability because nothing in the article refers to what third parties have written. I have not checked the references, but they appear to be database entries, and an article should speak for itself, without requiring the reader to check the references. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed. No evidence of notability and seemingly no valid sources/coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Dubai

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

Per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTTRAVEL. Just a list of unremarkable bus routes in one particular city. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and United Arab Emirates. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs improvement to add a bit of context (e.g. history), but this is an entirely appropriate spinout from the encyclopaedic discussion of public transport in the city that is too long for the main article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a directory at best. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTDIR, and I disagree that this could be attached to a discussion of public transport, the intention is a dry listing of bus routes and little else. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea why this article or others like it exist. Perhaps a discussion in the transportation Wikiproject could be had concerning all of them at once. Category:Lists of bus routes Category:Bus routes Dream Focus 16:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of bus routes exists because the consensus of many discussions about individual routes has been to merge them to a list, and the consensus of deletion discussions of multiple (although not necessarily all) lists of bus routes has been to keep. It is fine to discuss whether this list is encyclopaedic but the concept of a list in general is definitely encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This article has no independent sources (and hardly any sources at all), just two citations to the websites of Roads and Transport Authority (Dubai) which operates these buses. Furthermore, lists like these are not of use to people looking to catch a bus in the city, since many people don't ride bus routes from one terminus to the other; they may board somewhere mid-route and get off the bus somewhere else mid-route, and possibly make a connection to another route as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lists like these are not of use to people looking to catch a bus in the city is correct, but that's not the purpose of these lists and is a reason they don't violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. It doesn't really speak to WP:NOTDIR, but despite multiple assertions that it does violate that I've still seen no arguments demonstrating that it actually does. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDIR says that Wikipedia should not include "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." I think that would apply to this list, not to mention that the complete lack of independent sources and dearth of sources at all would exclude it under WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Topic fits better on Wikivoyage. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EIU Canback

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

Fails NCORP and the GNG. Searches did not turn up significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

Note: I'm nominating this at AfD instead of using PROD in the hopes of getting some extra eyes on the deletion request, since the page only has three followers. No objection to soft deletion if it comes to that. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Analysis Software

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

This is not a single things it is just a list of things that would be useful for Fundamental Analysis and if necessary should be included in that article. This is unreferenced and original research at best and I think should be deleted. Sargdub (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just a list of software features devoid of context or sources. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 00:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclino

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

Per discussion at Talk:Comparison of wiki hosting services (as well as numerous other people in the page history), Nuclino is not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. A simple WP:BEFORE effort would have shown that this app has 40-odd Google Scholar mentions, some of them substantive. I have looked through some of the more promising English language articles and added use cases along with citations. I also edited the article so it's not so stub-like.

It would appear this is an app with an active userbase and some longevity and it is likely people will come to Wikipedia to find out more about it.

One comment - the "discussion" at Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services was one user advocating for inclusion of another piece of software in the article, citing the inclusion of Nuclino as an example of something that should not merit inclusion, followed by a comment by User:Pppery about that other piece of software. I believe this is all good faith, but it's not exactly a lengthy conversation. Oblivy (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and then someone else deleting Nuclino from the article. I filed this AfD because I saw a consensus there that Nuclino was not notable, and felt that consensus needed to be ratified in the proper venue for making such decisions.

I will admit that I failed to check Google Scholar before starting this AfD. But, looking at the sources you added, only "Top 10 Nuclino Alternatives & Competitors 2023" is in-depth coverage and I'm not convinced it's reliable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share your doubts about the alternatives and competitors article, but after looking at it I found it substantive in the sense that it identifies specific shortcomings in this software (as opposed to the many list-of-product tech articles which just include a blurb and a link to buy), which is why I included it. The other mentions discuss specific deployments of the software so even though the actual treatment of the software is limited the articles show it has an ongoing userbase. Oblivy (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability criteria depend on depth of coverage, not the size of the userbase. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Received some routine coverage in German, deutsche-startups.de, gruenderkueche.de. Could redirect to some list with it instead of a standalone article, because the article is mostly citation overkill? IgelRM (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the sources already in the article: listicle, non-RS blogs, and passing mentions. (I couldn't find any mentions in the Workgroups eAssessment source, strangely.) I've also found a Russian-language source and a Czech-language thesis and a second thesis from GScholar which, while it isn't the primary topic, can be used to support factual statements. I've trawled GScholar and translated a bunch of sources (I'm a little surprised at how many non-English scholar sources exist). Most seem to be citing Nuclino's blog, while others give a surface-level examination of the site. What I'm gleaning from Google News results is that they are "alternative to XYZ"/"comparison of" posts. My digging hasn't dug up anything that would pass notability. SWinxy (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All coverage appears to be routine or surface-level. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most coverage is routine and there's nothing especially notable about the company. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alba AR5

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

Not notable enough. Sources present in the article are nowhere near strong enough to suggest notability; racingsportscars should only be used as a last-resort source for race results only (i.e. it should not be used to confer notability.) A comprehensive BEFORE brings up nothing significant. This seems to be a continuation of Davism's habit of creating sports cars that don't have any notability, such as March-BMW M1/C. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 08:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Motorsport, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found in Wikipedia Library (general search) or ProQuest. Supercars.net also has an entry for the Alba AR5 (including a photo and a few sentences), but like RacingSportsCars, the site should only be cited with great care as a source on Wikipedia, and does not count as a reliable source establishing notability per Wikipedia guidelines including WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Le storie di Farland

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2018.

PROD removed with "try AfD" and zero improvements. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Italy. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one line mention of a TV show, nothing found for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find any sources, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Tollens (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Ferenzik

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

Non-notable musician article created by the subject. Appears to lack WP:SIGCOV and fails to meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. All solo albums are through a non-notable label, while his "collaborations" are minor roles where he was not significantly involved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some mentions of performances in the Delco Times and Detroit newspapers, but nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sourcing could be found for this individual beyond their personal website and social media accounts. Also agree with original notice. Additionally, @Ferenzik did not adequately comply with WP:COI in disclosing their affiliation to their own article. Sad to say it, but this article is 15 years overdue for a deletion. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 08:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to DC vs. Marvel#Trading cards. Apparently already merged. Sandstein 16:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Marvel vs. DC" cards

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

Longstanding article that has never had any references. It has been redirected and PROD'd, it is time to see if it is worth keeping at all and whether the current WP:OR can be kept. The lack of references for 10+ years is just asking to be deleted all on its own, but I'm not sure the subject is even notable enough to merit even a well-sourced article. The cards certainly exist, there is even an (uncited, of course!) mention at DC vs. Marvel, as well as a proposed merge of this article that doesn't seem to be tagged here. I suggest redirecting to DC vs. Marvel. Lithopsian (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine. More of a fanfic idea. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - search results suggest to me that this is not notable. There is no cited comment to merge. Please png me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsalvagable fancruft, images likely pushing fair use to breaking point, no proof of notabilty or sources, even the page title is useless. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BoomboxTestarossa - The severe problems with the contents of the article means that the history probably should not be be preserved, and while redirects are cheap, this is not a particularly likely search term. Rorshacma (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DC vs. Marvel and tag as needing sources. BD2412 T 15:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the images' pages seem to be deliberately evading fair use standards and should be chopped but I'm unsure of the mechanism for doing so. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete with tag per BD2412. There are also waaaay too many non-free images. Only one can be kept to minimize non-free material. SWinxy (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief it's hard to get anything done on here that doesn't involve nuking new articles. The page name isn't even formatted properly. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per BD2412. Hiding T 12:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Nothing to merge due to no references, so redirecting is a mercy considering this and the unlikely-to-be-searched-for name. This is pure WP:OR with no indication of WP:GNG associated with the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it's not original research, it can be sourced. To satisfy the terms of the license we'd need to merge and redirect, not merely redirect. There's enough that can be merged and sourced here. More than happy to take care of it when this afd eventually closes if someone drops me a line. Hiding T 09:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taken a pass at it, there's enough there to merge and redirect now. Hiding T 09:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually gone and been bold and merged already. Hiding T 10:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fork Junction, West Virginia

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

As best as I can determine, this is an old coal shipping point outside of Woodville, not an actual community. Searching is drowned out by a "Glen Fork Junction" that is either the same as or is related to Glen Fork, West Virginia (elsewhere in the state), but I'm finding no significant coverage or coverage that indicates a WP:GEOLAND pass for a "Fork Junction" in Lincoln County. Hog Farm _Talk 04:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 04:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎ . ✗plicit 03:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dessert Games

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

Does not appear to satisfy notability requirements. Nothing found in BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2022.

Was PRODded last year and deleted, but granted a REFUND, but 1 year later there has been no additional citations to support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Warren, Andrew (2017-07-09). "Taste TV: Dessert Games. Baking aisle expansion. Guy Fieri's supermarket gets a sweet makeover". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The result is "Dessert Games," a decidedly sweeter take on the "Guy's Grocery Games" formula. The new series premieres Monday, July 10, on Food Network. At its core, the foundation is the same as it is in "Triple-G." Each episode brings four pasty chefs into the grocery store (actually a TV set, but just as stocked as a real supermarket) with their eyes on the sweet, sweet $10,000 prize. Goldman then issues them a series of dessert challenges, with the contestants needing to run up and down the grocery store aisles to shop for their ingredients."
2. "Dessert Games". tvplus. 2022-07-28. Retrieved 2023-04-21 – via PressReader.
  This article from News24 discusses the South African magazine tvplus. The tvplus article notes: "Gather round if you’ve been dying for a sweet-treat on TV – chefs Guy Fieri from reality show Diners, Drive-ins & Dives and Duff Goldman from baking show Aces Of Cakes have teamed up for the sugariest show ever – Dessert Games! ... For this new show, four talented amateur dessert chefs are challenged to create delicious treats in each of the four episodes, with the winner of each episode earning a $10 000 (R170 000) shopping spree, with a grand prize waiting for them at the end of the season. While Guy assists with the tasting and judging, Duff picks the ultimate dessert diva. ... In episode 1, the chefs make an extravagant deepfried dessert on a budget, followed by a late-night guilty pleasure dessert that must be ready in just 20 minutes."
3. Inscoe, Corey (2019-10-13). "Watch a Charlotte pastry chef try to win $10,000 on Food Network tonight". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-21.
  The article notes: "How do you turn the ingredients for ravioli into a dessert? We’ll see what Charlotte pastry chef Brittani Brooker comes up with when she appears on Food Network show “Dessert Games” tonight. The show, which airs at 8 p.m. Monday, is a spin-off of Guy Fieri’s “Grocery Games” hosted by “dessert master” Duff Goldman. Four chefs compete by shopping, preparing and plating three desserts, with the winner taking home $10,000."
4. "Critic's choice. Tonight's review of TV. Dessert Games". Courier News. 2017-07-17. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Dessert Games Four new pastry chefs are taking on Duff Goldman's in Guy Fieri's market, and first the chefs must turn Guy's favorite diner classic into a sweet diner dessert imposter. Next, the chefs must repurpose a premade cake into an impressive dessert. Finally, the two remaining chefs play a game in which cake candles determine the special ingredient and the special event tied to their decadent chocolate dessert. Each week, four talented dessert chefs will attempt to shop, prepare and plate three amazing confection- ary creations in the middle of a market, employing shopping shortcuts and food-hack secrets. The last chef standing will get to test their knowledge of dessert ingredients in a sweet shopping spree worth up to $10,000!"
5. Hirt, Suzanne (2011-07-09). "Daytona chef plays 'Dessert Games' on Food Network". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-21.
  The article notes: "But Monday night, Daytona State head baker Andra Chisholm will appear on Food Network’s debut series “Dessert Games,” a reality cooking competition. The season premiere begins at 8 p.m. ... The format is similar to that of Food Network’s 12-seasons-and-counting reality show “Guy’s Grocery Games,” hosted by Guy Fieri. As in that series, four chefs race to prepare food with ingredients found in a supermarket. They'll compete in three rounds, with one contestant eliminated after each round, for a $10,000 prize. Each round will focus on a different category, and unusual restrictions will be imposed that heighten the challenge."
6. Anderson, John (2017-07-13). "'Dessert Games,' 'Texas Cake House' and 'The Great British Baking Show' Reviews: Unsavory Series and a Sweet Import". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-21.
  The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Mr. Fieri is, in fact, the power behind "Dessert Games," the latest victual-reality show from Food Network and a spinoff of his own "Guy's Grocery Games." The participants on Monday's debut were assigned to use the inventory of the show's "supermarket" to make "tricked out" ice-cream sandwiches. The mandatory ingredient: pork rinds. Yes, there are virtues to marrying the salty to the sweet. But not this."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dessert Games to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Nfitz (talk · contribs), who requested a WP:REFUND of the article. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn due to citations found by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox 2

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

Believe it should be delete under WP:NOT because we're directory of software. would like to also suggest that the following be deleted as well

Firefox 3.0 Firefox 3.5 Firefox 3.6 Firefox 4 1keyhole (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly verifiable and notable. Delete this article will definitely hurt Wikipedia. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: Nothing inherently wrong with any of these articles, what are you getting at exactly? Streetlampguy301 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles included are closer in scope to Windows 98 than a hypothetical article on Firefox 98 (since the versions of Firefox in question are before Firefox changed their release model and those releases were major releases.) Skynxnex (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. To delete this article and the ones similar to it would be akin to deleting articles like Mac OS X 10.0, Windows 98, Android Eclair and numerous other articles like them. They're major releases of software and are of relative importance; as The person who loves reading stated, this will most certainly harm Wikipedia. Dawnbails (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of them for now. We need to see what's going to happen with Firefox version history and Firefox early version history first. There may be a case eventually for merging these into the latter, but the general trend around Firefox version articles for the last decade has been to split them up given how long the pages were getting — so unless those version history pages are extensively cleaned up a merge is probably unwise. For the time being, these are short but well-written & well-sourced articles about browser versions that were very popular at the time of their release, and so are important to people wanting to understand the development of the web. They belong on Wikipedia. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 15:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable software. Klausness (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Kılıç

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

Sourced mostly to PR-fluff and interviews - not convinced there's enough independent coverage to meet WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Turkey. KH-1 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable enough. Aintabli (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails CREATIVE, notability is not established. Source failed verification, the subject did not win awards from L’Oreal and Just for Men as read in the article. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas F. Crosby Jr.

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

This is another biography of a run-of-the-mill state judge on a non-statewide appellate court. The subject was born, went to school, had some run-of-the-mill jobs, had marriages and kids, was appointed to this office, and died. This does not reach encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. BD2412 T 01:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Jarčov

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Croatia. Joeykai (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7: Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Not enough evidence of significant notability. AaronWikia (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Not enough evidence of significant notability. AaronWikia (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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