Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 11	February 13 >

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzy Clark[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article only cites two secondary sources and only one is actually about Lizzy Clark (the BBC article). The rest of the cited sources are mostly about Clark's mother and are all primary sources except one (The Observer). Consequently, this article relies too heavily on primary sources; more than half of the eight sources cited are primary (mostly things written by Clark's mother), with only two secondary sources and one dead link. Also, the majority of the Career section is about their mother's activism (and it should be noted that the website for the mother's campaign is no longer active), and the Personal Life section says more about Clark's mother and sister than it does about Lizzy Clark. Baronet13 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not against an article having primarily primary sources. The newspaper articles are not all interviews by the subject. There are at least three good sources with material about the person. I add in "weak" due to the lack of secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia notability guidelines require that articles rely primarily on independent sources (WP:INDEPENDENT), so an article that relies primarily on primary sources fails that requirement. The biggest problem in the case of this article is that most of the sources cited were written by and/or about the subject's mother (who actually seems more notable than the subject) and contains little or no substantive information about the subject. Also, what are the "three good sources" you mentioned? I'm only aware of one short BBC article. Baronet13 (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ‪雞蛋仔 eggwaffles (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Careful and thorough search for SIGCOV by reliable independent secondary sources doesn’t show anything that would satisfy notability guidelines per WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:35, 19 February 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)} 03:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Findoc[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any WP:SIGCOV in independent and reliable sources. Pretty much all of the coverage originates from press releases issued by the company. Maduant (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Maduant (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV - - - 👑Misterrrrr👑 (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC) blocked as a sock. Akevsharma (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Two of the sources, from India Times, are presumed to be notable as a paper of record. The other seem to be less so. I would probably go either weak delete or weak keep if forced to vote, but I am on the fence. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments isn't clear. Are you saying that sources from a "paper of record" are presumed to ~~be notable?~~ meet the criteria for establishing notability? That isn't the case but again, not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which require references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when reworded or modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant nor the "quality" of the publication - a million "mentions" or single-sentence descriptions in the highest quality reliable source does not meet the criteria, nor can multiple sources be combined.

In this case, the references are either basic information or regurgitated announcements as follows:

This in aninews is an announcement about winning an award copied (see bottom of article) from this Press Release issued by the company. Primary source. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This in India Times, this in Business Today, this in Financial Express and also this in India Times are clearly entirely based on company announcements or PR and do not contain any "Independent Content". They fail ORGIND
This and this in India Times are standard company listing/descriptions, not significant, fails SIGCOV and ORGIND
Finally, This is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH

None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 18 February 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. Star Mississippi 12:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Reader[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here doesn't pass WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Cambodia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. A search mainly yields coverage of namesakes. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it currently fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, NPERSON, and BIO. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:13, 19 February 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. Star Mississippi 12:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Longhurst[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here doesn't pass WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Cambodia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. No wider coverage found on the net. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant in-depth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it does not currently pass WP:BIO and WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:35, 18 February 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Redshaw[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here doesn't pass WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Cambodia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage of a diplomatic career. Nothing substantial to establish notability. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:36, 18 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Svenska Skolan Paris[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no significant coverage in either Swedish or French name. LibStar (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, France, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded the artice; most of the content is new since it was taken to AfD. This is a fairly important school in the history of Swedish education: the first of the so called "utlandsskolorna", Swedish schools in other countries. While a general search didn't find much of importance (the only openly accessible reference I've used, from Norrtelje Tidningar, has as much focus on one of the students as one the school itself; this is not true for the other references), better coverage can be found e.g. through sv:Mediearkivet, which collects Swedish newspaper articles, sometimes going back to the 1990s. /Julle (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I don't think "Svenska skolan Paris" is helpful when looking for sources; the name typically used in Swedish is "Svenska skolan i Paris". /Julle (talk) 00:09, 13 February 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. Nominator is a probable sockpuppet of some indeterminate user, and none of the reasons provided are sufficient for deletion. Closing as frivolous re-nomination. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of destroyed heritage of the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

1. How do we define "destroyed"? Partially destroyed? Completely destroyed? To paraphrase a discussion from the talk page of the main list of destroyed heritage, are we to differentiate between deliberate destruction caused by humans (e.g. the September 11 attacks), vs. natural disaster (e.g. the Hurricane Katrina examples)? What's very confusing is that this article only seems to cover the former whereas the main article seems to cover both.

2. And how do we define "heritage"? Do the contents of List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests count as heritage? The answer would depend on the political inclinations of whoever you ask. We could use criteria like National Register of Historic Places, but there would likely be too many, and that list only covers locations.

3. And why does this deserve a completely separate article (and in a separate format) from the general list of destroyed heritage?

Overall, for these reasons, I feel like this list is unhelpful, and serves little purpose which cannot be found in the main article. In its current state it can hardly stand, and I can hardly see any way to improve it that cannot be better off done in editing the main artice. WiktionariThrowaway (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasoned I mentioned last time. The criteria is clearly defined and everything listed has its own article. The nominator has two edits before sending this article to deletion and has a name that includes throwaway. WiktionariThrowaway, if you have another Wikipedia account, you need to reveal it now. Dream Focus 23:32, 12 February 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. Star Mississippi 12:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Life: Meaning, Purpose & Death[edit]

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

Not a single non primary source, and the 'book' is just a collection of AI generated text. Every part of this reads like an ad. Great how they even included the Amazon link. Most likely a low effort attempt to make a quick few bucks, unless if anyone can find a single source that even mentions it. – Popo Dameron talk 21:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Popo Dameron talk 21:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no non-primary, non-database etc. sources. Could easily be spam (which the book basically is itself). Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the article is definitely spam and should just be speedied. Creator is obviously the author, and they have been systematically spam-bombing numerous other articles as well. Dronebogus (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator. BEFORE check shows no appropriate sources that would substantiate either a claim to general notability or specific notability per WP:NBOOK MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Woodroar (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. I prodded this article, the only reason this Prod was removed is because an editor is disruptively WP:HOUNDing me, causing more work for everyone for no benefit at all. The article is spam of an utterly non notable book. Fram (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please see my comment below, which was responding to abuse elsewhere. I didn't realize Fram was insulting me, making accusations here too. After I encountered a number of bad AFD nominations by Fram (i think all ended "keep"), i did browse their contribiutions and see other bad edits, and questionable prods and i did remove at least 2 prods. Their abusive-type commenting here is obnoxious IMHO. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed 9 prods, 7 of which are already deleted and 2 which are so far unanimous deletions at Afd apart from you. Fram (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; in addition to what's said above, there are no Google results for this book title. I was about to nominate it myself when I saw the template had been applied. jp×g 08:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the deprod said "I'm not sure this is not significant" - well it's a self-published book with no reviews or indeed any sources at all which weren't written by the book's author, and it looks like they wrote this article as well. I can't see how it's at all significant. Hut 8.5 18:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above comments. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources mention this collection of AI-generated text, I was sure there would be something, but zero hits. Oaktree b (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet our standards for Notability. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the editor who chose to remove a "PROD" on this article (and apparently make some other edit in the article), with edit summary "rm PROD, edit some. I'm not sure this is not significant." I recall that I was thinking the article was promotional-like, and I think I considered it possible/likely that it was started by someone close to the author or publisher. But I considered it possible that the claim made was true, that the book was the first published poetry book largely generated by ChatGPT, or at least that it was one of the first such. And I believe that having some list of first or early ChatGPT products is likely worthwhile. If I could have found such a list-article easily I might have merged/redirected it myself, or noted on the list-article talk page that this poetry book should be considered as a possible list-item. And, given no list-article is apparent, I do think it would be reasonable for this AFD discussion to consider the merit of creating one. And then the decision here could be "Redirect" or "Merge" perhaps.

I make this comment in partial response to critical comments about me made elsewhere citing my removal of the PROD. For the record, I did remove the PROD. I would welcome comments here whether that was totally unreasonable or abusive or otherwise bad on my part, or not. Is my argument that a list-article should be considered, so far-fetched? This comment by me and any further discussion on these lines is off track from the purpose of the AFD, but it seems relevant for me to try to reach those considering the validity of the article here, about the accusation of abuse made against me elsewhere. So comment further or not. Thanks for considering this, anyhow. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by potential coverage, and spam has no redeeming qualities whatsoever especially when it consists mostly of mundane easily sourced data. If this did become notable WP:TNT would still apply. Dronebogus (talk) 10:44, 19 February 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. UPE creation Drmies (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Jazz Loft[edit]

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

Non-notable venue. Sources are local news, primary sources, and a few press releases, which makes sense when you consider that someone paid to have this article created. Check the talk page for my evidence on this. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 12 February 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Springs, Arizona[edit]

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

No evidence of a settlement; maps show a spring with a tank next to a few foundations. –dlthewave ☎ 19:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 19:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many, many matches on Google Scholar, Newspapers.com, and Google Books. While a lot of those results are trivial mentions, there's some significant coverage in there, with sources like Dine Bikeyah Navajo Places, The Navajo Country, and Geology of Navajo Country provide some significant coverage and establish that this has historically been a populated place. Hubbell Trading Post and A Great Aridness provide significant coverage of trading posts established at Cedar Springs and their history, as well as descriptions of the site more generally. A lot of the mere mentions (not linked) also use Cedar Springs to give geographic directions to other places, suggesting a level of recognition that implies further significant coverage's existence (although at this point I think even just the assembled sources above substantiate at least a weak case for GNG outright). FWIW, while the search term "Cedar Springs" "Arizona" turns up the largest pile of (mostly trivial) results, "Cedar Springs" "Navajo" returned most of the more substantial sources I've linked above. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rosguill; the article passes both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quick search demonstrates plenty of WP:SIGCOV by reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability and satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:33, 19 February 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. Star Mississippi 12:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by renewable electricity production[edit]

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

Useless as so old. Anyone geeky enough to extract new data from IRENA would load it on Wikidata not here, as Wikipedia is not really designed for lots of numbers. But even if they did load it to Wikidata and then extracted to other language Wikipedias it would be hard to extract to English Wikipedia as Wikidata list is only available for sandboxes on this language. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: Meets the general criteria for a list (e.g., WP:NLIST) and there are reliable sources out there that can be used to update and improve it such as here: [1]. Deletion is not cleanup, and the fact no one bothered to update it is not a reason to delete it. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs improvement, not deletion. WP:ATD CT55555(talk) 01:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an article cannot be deleted to requiring improvment and updating --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 11:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. No need for deletion. Orientls (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments - above comment which should be improved, not deleted. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is exactly the sort of energy law article that we, and our core readership of students, need. Obviously, it needs improvement, as it borders on synthesis. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. NYC Guru (talk) 20:35, 16 February 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 as there was already an open AFD discussion on the article, which I missed solely because the creator had stripped the deletion template from the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NNDN[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, and has to be shown to pass certain specific markers of noteworthy achievement supported by a certain specific class of reliable source coverage about him in media -- but this isn't claiming anything that would pass the criteria in NMUSIC, and is referenced entirely to his music's presence on online streaming platforms, and a simple list of the results of a Google search, rather than any evidence of media coverage about him. And even if I switch the Google search to the "news" tab, I only get news articles about monthly COVID-19 statistics in Rhode Island and an article about a Ukrainian child who went missing in Poland, not any coverage of an Indian musician.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations site on which emerging musicians are entitled to have articles for the publicity -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be a subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cackleberry Island[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage of this small island in my searches. Sourcing consists entirely of information extracted from large datasets, and the Geonames listing is the only one that's specific to the location. –dlthewave ☎ 17:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. –dlthewave ☎ 17:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lake Nipigon. Delete Zooming in on Mapcarta this appears to be no more than 100 metres in length. I can't see how this can be populated. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirecting a topic to an article which does not, and will not ever, mention the topic, seems unhelpful to readers, to me. Lake Nipigon is big, "4,848 km2 (1,872 sq mi)" in area apparently. Is there a more suitable article which a redirect can target, which can cover it? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete geocruft. Tiny spit of land with no indication of uniqueness or importance. Sources seem to be mundane factoids and broad regional datasets of dubious accuracy just going by common sense (see above— the population is listed as “less than 2 per sqKm but the island doesn’t even appear to be that big). Dronebogus (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as geocruft per @Dronebogus. No RSes have been provided at the page or elsewhere which establish notability per WP:NLAND. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of islands of Ontario. Peter James (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Originally I had also tried to find a good redirect target, but then I realised this 'island' is only 100 metres long. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of islands of Ontario#Ottawa River lists 100 islands, some of similar size or smaller; looking at geonames.org there are around 120-130 named islands in Lake Nipigon. Peter James (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's mildly confusing that User:Peter James refers to islands in the Ottawa River, which is not relevant here but would be relevant in ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pig Island (Ottawa) instead. List of islands of Ontario#Lake Nipigon lists five islands, each vastly larger than this one, out of thousands of islands visible in Lake Nipigon. I'll take Peter James at their word that 120-130 of those are named in geonames.org. List of islands of Ontario has unclear inclusion criteria but appears to try to list relatively significant islands. IMHO there is no way this island should ever be listed in any section of List of islands of Ontario, though, so the topic should not be merged or redirected to there. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be arbitrarily different criteria for inclusion in different sections of the same list (and geonames.org has the Geographical Names Board of Canada as its main source in that area, the same as currently used in the Ottawa River section). Peter James (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies, meaning this argument doesn't hold much weight, because those other places should probably be deleted as well.

and more importantly, the only reason for a REDIRECT should be if we think there are sufficient incoming links to this name that it would be helpful for anyone to go to this link and see the list. As far as I can tell, there are exactly zero such incoming links here, in mainspace anyway. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many similar redirects, often as the result of AFD, and there would be no reason to delete in WP:RFD#DELETE if added to the list. Peter James (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as no information specific to the place is known or included in article, besides its coordinates. It is not significant enough to mention in any list-article proposed. Not mentioned in any Wikipedia mainspace article at all, after I just deleted it from a disambiguation page where it should not have appeared. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:26, 16 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One career of Lewis Hamilton[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork of his own article. T v x1 17:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. T v x1 17:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the proposal to delete. It's too long and detailed. His career history is already adequately covered on the main Lewis Hamilton page. Koppite1 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, thanks for pinging me. For some context, my motivation for making the split in November 2019 was due to the extensive, maundering season reports in the original article. Initially, I did what I could to reduce these reports down, but it soon became clear that entirely new, summary-style reports were required. I wrote these new, shorter reports which are, I'm pleased to say, extant, broadly speaking, on the subject's main page today. This, of course, necessitated deleting the previous text elsewhere, or (as I thought was a better and less-controversial alternative at the time) simply moving them to a new article. Unfortunately, this article has not been well maintained and has become hugely bloated with poorly-written rambling season reports by no doubt well-meaning editors apparently unfamiliar with the adage "less is more". I'm not too fussed either way about whether it stays or goes, so long as the relevant section of the main article doesn't end up hideously bloated again or be updated following each Grand Prix weekend with another rambling paragraph. —Ave (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main article should be trimmed and indeed be more written with season reports and not race-by-race summaries. Many of his 2014-2020 wins were pretty uncontested with superdominant machinery and don't need a separate paragraph. T v x1 21:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ave: the only way to stop the issues of a summary for every race is to visit the page regularly (every month?) and do an aggressive copyedit to move the style from fanpage to encylopedia. SSSB (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Motorsport articles in general are very bad for this type of WP:FANCRUFT, but unfortunately this seems to be the only, or least the most efficient way. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lewis Hamilton#Formula One career. This article is full of excessive detail which mostly belongs in individual race articles. Certainly this is an unnecessary split from the main article, and I agree with the above discussion that it isn't the best way to handle excessive detail which should simply be removed. Of course content can be (very selectively) merged to Lewis Hamilton, or to season and race articles, as appropriate. A7V2 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find the article, send me because I want to put in my user page. Izzlex94 verstappenchamp (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The title here is really not one that I feel is a plausible search target for someone wanting to arrive at Lewis Hamilton#Formula One career (why wouldn't someone just search for "Lewis Hamilton" instead?), which in my opinion would make a redirect inappropriate. Delete content as an excessively CRUFTy content fork. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever has the article send me. I am not going to make the article again. Instead I will use it in my user space. Izzlex94 verstappenchamp (talk) 11:30, 20 February 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. Not speedily only because it has essentially run seven days Star Mississippi 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Rowshan[edit]

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

Likely promotional/paid editing; the only ref with WP:DEPTH from a third-party source (The Liverpool Echo) is actually a "partner source/advertorial" OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only RS I find is the Liverpool Echo article, nothing otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Liverpool Echo piece is good, but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are not enough reliable sources to establish enough notability to justify keeping. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note I've blocked the article's author as the sock of a blocked spammer. The article would be eligible for G5 deletion, but since this discussion is up and running I guess it can run its course. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:RS, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:TNT. I agree with the crowd. The sources are terrible (blogs, the formerly good Newsweek that is now deprecated, etc.). In 2023, everyone knows we are not a free web host for your spam. There are too many typos to fix quickly (TomeOut?). Bearian (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:44, 18 February 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. G5, but also consensus trending in that direction. Star Mississippi 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adeel Chaudhry (food connoisseur)[edit]

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

Main claim to fame appears to be "first Pakistani food connoisseur to be featured in Forbes", but that article is a "contributor" piece, a self-published source as noted in WP:FORBESCON. The other articles appear to be similar PR efforts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I would consider anything written by Sonya Rehman (a past Fullbright Scholar in Journalism and a former Pulitzer-Moore Fellow at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism) as reliable given her pedigree as a journalist and subject matter expert in arts and culture journalism. She's written for the The Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera. Time, etc. I don't think there is a strong argument to be made here against the Forbes article in terms of reliability. I would consider this as one high quality source towards passing WP:SIGCOV based on who the author is per WP:FORBESCON and the content. However, none of the other sources contain significant coverage and are fluffy self-promotional pieces. As such we lack multiple sources with independent significant coverage and the topic fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with @4meter4, if the discussion is about Forbes article as a "Contributor piece". Seeing the previous publications of Sonya Rehman, It is hard to tell if the contribution was made under with personal interests. I would also say that Gulf Today reference is also considered as reliable. I would accept the final decision of the administrator but these references along with Advisor to Government's reference should be considered.

Piturru (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. TEDx and BBC Asian Network references

Piturru (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional attempts, both the articles in forbes and gulf today are not coverage as such but are promotional. Nothing else can be found that states them as a significant contribution to their field. I am not sure, for what we can claim them as notable? as a vlogger. entrepreneur? Everything fails WP:GNG. QueerEcofeminist🌈 16:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As told by the user @4meter4 and my personal research it will be accurate to say Sonya Rehman's written article to be reliable passing WP:SIGCOV. Gulf Today as per saying was not a promotional article because of it being conducted via local survey a local Survey Conducted-Gulf Today[2], no hyperlink indications were seen if it was advertorial. Local news as per wikipedia notability can be promotional. There is no indication of him being an entrepreneur or a vlogger either, Particularly known for the style of representation of food. He should be considered as a chef and restaurateur instead. Piturru (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment User:Piturru, you have yet to address the WP:PAID question on your talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU comment I have blocked the article's author, Piturru, as a CU-confirmed sock of a blocked editor. I have no doubt that this article was created for undisclosed payments, and it would be eligible for G5 deletion, but since some editors have already commented here I guess the discussion can run its course. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as the subject does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Sahaib (talk) 11:24, 18 February 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!} 07:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 MKS Cracovia season[edit]

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

No prose references to prove the articles notabilty. The only three citations are about the league (not specific to Cracovia), the squad (is not prose), and the league fixtures (not specific to Cracovia). As an addition, it is not updated at all and the matches are empty. Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Poland. Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. A professional team competing in Poland's top division and also continental competitions, plenty of coverage out there, nominator has not undertaken before to search for any other sources., which are present at polish football websites like 90minut and Sport.pl. Poor nomination. Giant Snowman 18:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of media coverage in Google News. For example, this story could be added to the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relist - @Sandstein: please can you explain why this was re-listed? There is clear consensus to keep. Giant Snowman 19:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Polish and therefore have no way of knowing whether the sources proposed above are reliable; this needs the attention of more Polish-speaking contributors. Sandstein 07:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't think it's your job to assess the sourcing, it's to assess the consensus in this discussion. Giant Snowman 19:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sources exist to justify an article per WP:GNG, is a professional team participating in a league competition, in addition to their inclusion on UEFA's website. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 21:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments; it passes WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. The prior relist appears to be more of a WP:SUPERVOTE rather than an attempt to generate clearer consensus (which is surprising because Sandstein is among the best when it comes to managing AFD's). Use of Google Translate shows that the sources posted above are WP:SIGCOV to pas WP:GNG with flying colors. Frank Anchor 16:58, 16 February 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. Star Mississippi 12:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BullsEye Telecom[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG SpinningSpark 15:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 08:27, 16 February 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 Product bundling#TV programing bundles by cable and satellite providers. Slightly early, but the nom has withdrawn and there's no dissension. Star Mississippi 12:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phone bundle[edit]

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

Dicdef plus non-article sourced only to promotional sites. Also, this is not the usual meaning of phone bundle. SpinningSpark 15:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Product bundling#TV programing bundles by cable and satellite providers This is promo junk, and this is an WP:ATD. Nate • (chatter) 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Sometimes even if an article is for an arguably notable topic we have to consider other reasons, such as poor quality. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I would support that redirect. Requesting speedy close so it can be implemented. SpinningSpark 19:48, 16 February 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. Procedural Keep after nomination was Withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Falk (academic)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Falk does not satisfy any of the eight notability criteria at WP:ACADEMIC, and a look at Google Scholar and JSTOR confirms this. Academically speaking, Falk appears to have been one of the tens of thousands of academics who are Professors and publish a bit, but without meeting any of the eight required criteria. No obvious notability outside Academia either; a few obituaries when he passed away, but that is also common. In one minor publication, Falk appears to have made a claim that many users in the WP:ARBPIA field wish to repeat. This AfD is not a comment on that claim; academic findings in good journals are WP:RS despite the author not having a WP article, and, vice versa, dubious claims are not WP:RS despite the author having a WP article. Knowing how fraught with tensions the ARBPIA field is, I hope this AfD can focus on whether Falk met any of the eight criteria at WP:ACADEMIC (or whether he otherwise was notable). Nothing in the article indicates that that is the case. Struck, see comment below. Jeppiz (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Israel, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Zero^talk 15:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Falk was a noted geneticist. Contrary to the claim, it is easy to find more than 2000 citations for him at Google Scholar. He also wrote at least two books which were repeatedly reviewed and often cited. This more than enough to satisfy "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Furthermore, it is definitely NOT common for academics to receive obituaries in academic journals; in fact only a tiny fraction receive that honor. Zero^talk 15:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is factually incorrect. A bit over 2000 citations for a whole academic career is very modest. Few colleagues in my own department are below 6000 citations (and only one has a WP article, and he is above 80.000). Globally, most academics with 10.000 - 20.000 citations do not have articles on Wikipedia. It might be the overall criteria for academics are too strict (I am very open to that discussion) but that should be discussed under WP:ACADEMIC. As the criteria stand, Falk obviously does not meet them. Jeppiz (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I want to qualify my response to Zero above to state categorically that I wish we would apply the criteria Zero introduces. For many years, I've found it to be anti-academic bias that, for example, football players only need to play in a fourth division team that few would know and still qualify for notability, whereas not even being a Professor at a good university and have more than 1000 academic citations is enough for an academic. I have no argument in principle with what Zero writes. However, those are not the current guidelines. If anyone wants to start a discussion that academics such as Falk should be considered notable, I'll support it 100%. But in the meantime, we just cannot apply entirely different criteria to Falk than to other academics. Jeppiz (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So go and write articles on the fine academics who don't have them instead of trying to delete an article on someone who does deserve one. The problem with "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" is not present in its wording. You claim to dislike how high the barrier is in practice, but there is nothing at all forcing you to interpret this rule as a very high barrier. Instead, you are doing exactly what you complain about. Also I think your little warning in tiny type is rather outrageous given that you came here as a protagonist in the debate you mention. Zero^talk 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I did "go and write articles" they would be swiftly deleted as per WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps it would help discussion if you could indicate which of the eight criteria at WP:ACADEMIC you think Falk met. I do take your point about the obituary as being relevant, though I don't think it's enough in itself (obituaries are not for all academics but neither are they that rare). Still, it's a valid point. Beyond that point, what notability do you see and for which criteria? Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Daft nomination and frankly a bit tasteless and disrespectful to the recently deceased. Almost every paper by Falk on Google Scholar has dozens if not hundreds of cites, making the case for his impact self-evident. Also, see criterion 1.c. of WP:ACADEMIC, which notes that a memorial volume is qualification enough and low and behold (and the nom has already seen this): In Memoriam: Raphael Falk, 1929–2019. His works, such as The struggle of genetics for independence, are in 1,000+ academic libraries. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a memorial volume but a 4 page obituary in the Springer journal Biological Theory. As I noted this is an honor that only a tiny fraction of scholars receive when they die. Zero^talk 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323, exactly everything you say is wrong.

1. No, Falk is not "recently deceased", it's been more than 'two years. Not that it matters one bit.

2. "Dozens of citations" is like saying it's an athletic achievement to do two push-ups. Are you familiar with the H-index? Even the most junior faculty quickly gets an H-index of 10-20. An academic article with "dozens" of cites is not even remotely notable. In previous discussions over academic notability, we have looked at whether the academic has any article with more than 1000 cites. Even that has not necessarily been enough. .

3. I assume good faith in thinking that your claim that there was a memorial volume to Falk is not a deliberate lie (false though it is) but just another indication of your lack of knowledge of a academia. A journal published an obituary for Falk. That is not the same as a memorial volume.

In short, not one part of your comment is correct. Perhaps you refrain from calling others "daft"? Jeppiz (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, got confused over the in memorium piece, but no, it's still a daft nomination, and Zero is absolutely right that you are raising needless illusory barriers here, and you would be better off adding content instead. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough book reviews for WP:AUTHOR. Likely pass of WP:PROF#C1. And additional notability through a reliably published obituary and through Oren Harman's eulogy [3]. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, would you mind expanding? WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF#C1 both refer to highly cited, which in turn links to Clarivate which has a very helpful database of what is defined as "highly cited researchers". Falk is not included, so he does not satisfy that part of WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF#C1. Quite the contrary, his absence settles the matter of citations, we now know that (in WP's eyes) Falk is not widely cited. You may of course have refered to a different part of those criteria, would you mind explaining what part of them you think Falk fulfills. Jeppiz (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTHOR is about reviews, not citations. "The primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The usual standard I use for this is at least four reviews and at least two reviewed works; we are above that. For WP:PROF#C1, the standard is citation counts, as seen e.g. by searching for the subject's name in Google Scholar. Three or more publications with triple-digit citation counts is often good enough, although it depends on field (history of science is not a particularly high-citation field, so that rule should work ok for Falk, but machine learning or high-energy physics would be different). The searches are complicated by results by a different Raphael Falk, a physician, but I see 302 citations for "The concept of the gene in development and evolution", 186 for "What is a gene?", 153 for "The gene–A concept in tension", 124 for "A potential for learning probability in young children", 140 for "Labellar taste organs of Drosophila melanogaster", etc., enough to be convincing to me. Other participants might have different standards for how much is enough. Being listed by some science publishing database with unclear inclusion standards and unclear indexing comprehensivity for this field like Clarivate is neither necessary nor sufficient. Also see WP:BLUDGEON. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I have no intent to WP:BLUDGEON, apologies if you felt that way. As I told Zero, I am genuinely interested in the criteria WP uses for academics; it interests me much more than if the article on Falk is kept or not. If, for example, the standard you propose of three articles with three-digit citations became a general standard, I'd be very much in favour of that. So again, my intent was to hear your argument (not to impose mine) and I appreciate the argument you made. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a rough guideline and not applicable to all fields. Some knowledge of the citation patterns in different fields is necessary. In this case, in a not-particularly-highly-cited field with single-author publications, it works ok. In other fields, other thresholds would be needed. It cannot be reduced to a simple formula. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see where you are coming from Jeepiz: abstract wiki criteria, almost observed only in the breach, and your own experience as an editor. If, rather than singling out Falk, who happens to have written the only technical book in English on the parlous misperceptions governing a subject careless scholars make productive careers out, a book without which a few wiki articles cannot be adequately rewritten according to scientific standards, you applied your technical objections, there would be a Bonfire of the Vanities all over the place, beginning with 80 out of the 85 wiki Israeli academic bios listed here. Of the 13 I checked 12 failed miserably your wiki criteria. I've never cared for wiki guideline arcana, since arrogantly I think my formative training covers how to write encyclopedic articles. But here I am reminded of what Umberto Eco said in conversation decades ago, along the lines of: most of his research lent itself to publication for a broader public, but there were key topics that, though vital, could muster at best a specialist audience of dozens to hundreds, and there publication was not the point. Take the bio we have of a friend, the late lamented Danny Kane. He'd fail your test, but he was the Western world's foremost expert on two rare and extinct languages, Khitan and Jurchen, and wrote two important monographs on them that only specialists can read. When one studies medieval Chinese history, all sorts of trails lead you to those peoples, and at the end, you'll find Kane's work alluded to. Wikipedia should be as comprehensive as the redoubtable Encyclopedia Judaica, and cover everyone of historic interest. The EJ runs to 20 vols. Were those criteria applied to it, we'd have 4 vols, and people like myself spotting some minor figure without adequate coverage, running to it for illumination, would be frustrated and remain ignorant.

I once had occasion to work for two months on Nicolai A. Vasiliev, a seminal figure for some varieties of modern logic. For decades, he was neglected, and wikipedia would not have covered him, despite several very important notices in obscure journals. We must cater to very wide appetities and curiosities. All sorts of transient figures in the infotainment business get massive coverage, because they can rally any number of journalistic sources, and will be forgotten in a decade or two. Scholars who work at the forefront of their disciplines and write germinal works, should be covered. That excludes vanity bios of academics. They aren't written as often as not because no one has the time or passion to improve stubs or even note them. It's not sexy. I now recall citing David Dean Shulman on the herders of the Hebron hills. An admin challenged the detail and reverted my edit and simply redlinked the name with an edit summary, 'Shulman who?!'. No one had noticed him, despite him being one of the world's foremost Indologists. So I had to write his bio to justify restoring my edit. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Zero, David Eppstein, and Nishidani have all presented reasoned and relevant arguments. I'm receptive of their arguments, but more convinced than ever that WP:ACADEMIC needs to be improved. In previous AfD discussions I've been involved with, users leaned towards "Delete" when established academics had "only" some 10.000 cites, or when they only had one article above 1000 cites (and some 20 articles with 300-500 cites). I also saw a proposal to delete an academic with far above 100.000 cites (although it was kept). I agree with David Eppstein that a simple catch-all formula would not work, as different fields have different practices. However, some guidelines are needed. It is clear that the criteria about impact on WP:ACADEMIC means absolutely nothing. If 'we' can argue that a couple of articles above 100 is enough in one academic AfD, and in another 'we' (not the same persons) argue that 20-30 articles above 500 is not enough, then clearly we don't have guidelines at all. It's just pure random chance who happens to take part in an AfD. In the absence of any applicable guidelines for academics, I thus withdraw the nomination (and wait for it to be closed) but I hope WP:ACADEMIC will be improved. This complete randomness is farcical. Jeppiz (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Also rename to Rafi Falk per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL. gidonb (talk) 22:39, 12 February 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 but rename. While Ashrafi is not notable, it appears consensus is her death was. Whether this should be titled killing/murder/death of.. is one for editorial discussion and so I have not moved it. Star Mississippi 12:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romina Ashrafi[edit]

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

While tragic, no lasting effects, delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems to have fallen out of the public eye as quickly as it came into it. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs major work, so much is not cited, but in the context of this still being discussed as recently as Jan 2023, it seems to satisfy the criteria to be kept "In 2020, there was similar outrage after 14-year-old Romina...." with reference to WP:SUSTAINED CT55555(talk) 15:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, changing to Murder of Romina Ashrafi or Killing of Romina Ashrafi would also be desirable, considering our "one event" guidelines and WP:DEATHS CT55555(talk) 15:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (replying to the comment below that people aren't making policy based decisions, for the record, I think it's OK to not make policy based decisions) Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt, I think she meets WP:GNG due to the multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, examples include:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64319487 (mentions the event, not so much significant coverage, but WP:SUSTAINED)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/28/romina-ashrafi-outcry-in-iran-over-so-called-honour-killing-of-14-year-old-girl
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2020/05/26/Iranian-girl-13-beheaded-by-father-in-reported-honor-killing
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/lenient-sentence-for-father-who-murdered-daughter-provokes-outrage-in-iran-640425

CT55555(talk) 02:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And none of those address the NOTNEWS or BIO1E issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've adequately explained my keep vote, and while you are entitled to refute it, when the nomination to delete is 9 words long, you might want to consider where the onus lies. Nonetheless:

On WP:NOTNEWS

C1 - no original reporting. I asses this criteria as met

C2 - no "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities". A father chopping his own daughter's head off is absolutely not routine. This criteria is met.

C3 - don't make it about the person. This criterion is probably not met. Which is why I suggested the page move.

C4 - Don't include "gossip" celebrity lifestyle stuff. This criteria is not relevant.

On WP:BIO1E

The guideline helps us decided between an event article or a biographical article. I think the current framing is incorrect. It should be an event article.

In conclusion

In summary, I consider that WP:GNG is met, and that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E guide us towards changing this to an event article, but provide no basis to delete it. CT55555(talk) 03:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you might want to consider the totality of the issues re: NOTNEWS and BIO1E:

Re NOTNEWS:

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events."
"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be."

Re BIO1E

glad to see you understand the BIO1E is not met. That means that NOTNEWS predominates, and as for that, see above.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both your WP:NOTNEWS quotes are relevant. The first one I answer by showing you how the topic is getting coverage a month ago, that's why I quoted WP:SUSTAINED. And I said many times now that this should be an event article, which means we should keep and rename. Likewise BIO1E does the same. I consider these guidelines support my position. Let's avoid getting into WP:BLUDGEON territory by repeating the same points further. CT55555(talk) 03:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (per CT55555's above reasons) or merge into another article that discusses honor killings more broadly and lists significant examples (such as this incident). Plenty of international coverage, which establishes notability. Also agree with changing the title to Murder of Romina Ashrafi. Thank you. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an article about her death/murder. She isn't notable as an individual, the event surrounding her passing might be. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the same as keep and rename? (which is what I think we should do) CT55555(talk) 01:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename (to Murder of Romina Ashrafi or something like that). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep that is quite true that wikipedia is not a newspaper. but I believe that this young Lady's murder is well-known at least in Iran. even the former Iranian president Hassan Rouhani made a reaction on it: "Hassan Rouhani urged his cabinet to act after Romina Ashrafi was allegedly killed" report by The Guardian — NameGame (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments; WP:NOTNEWS is not a good enough reason to override the reasons for keeping. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But the article certainly needs significant work, regardless. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the keep !votes has any basis in WP policy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. But the Wikipedian who closes this discussion will be the one to decide, not me or you, Onel5969. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:26, 17 February 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. However if someone wants to work on it, happy to provide in draft. Star Mississippi 12:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zubeen Garg live performances[edit]

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

Don't see how this is notable as a standalone list (WP:LISTN). This level of detail isn't needed, and could just be a summarised in a small section on Zubeen Garg. WP:NOTDIARY. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator on WP:LISTN, and such a bare list has no encyclopedic value. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Are any of these live performances notable enough to write articles for? Right now there seems to be none, making this different than the list of concerts for other singers. Send it to a draft article on the creator's user page for now. Dream Focus 18:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Dream Focus. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 14 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antil (Jat clan)[edit]

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

Cannot find enough in-depth sources to show that this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Haryana, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete for the reasons stated above. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using a single source violates WP:SIGCOV, and, in this case is almost a WP:COPYVIO. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 16 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NNDN[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Only self-published content available; fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator, additionally, tried to strip the deletion template from the article, with the result that I independently came across it and initiated a redundant second AFD discussion on it for the exact same reasons. So I've already closed that, and am copy-pasting my own deletion rationale here: semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, and has to be shown to pass certain specific markers of noteworthy achievement supported by a certain specific class of reliable source coverage about him in media -- but this isn't claiming anything that would pass the criteria in NMUSIC, and is referenced entirely to his music's presence on online streaming platforms, and a simple list of the results of a Google search, rather than any evidence of media coverage about him. And even if I switch the Google search to the "news" tab, I only get news articles about monthly COVID-19 statistics in Rhode Island and an article about a Ukrainian child who went missing in Poland, not any coverage of an Indian musician.
Additionally, this is almost certainly an WP:AUTOBIO, as the subject's real name matches closely to the creator's username.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations site on which emerging musicians are entitled to have articles for the publicity -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be a subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real media. And, of course, the page will have to be monitored for any future attempts to remove the deletion template prematurely. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously fails notability. Silikonz💬 21:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. My searched lead me to conclude he is not notable. CT55555(talk) 01:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable whatsoever. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above comments; fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G5, it seems to me that this article is created by a blocked user (known as Nandanvinayan2555). 213.107.49.184 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination and in the above comments. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SNOW, and WP:SALT. Sourcing that is so bad that it might as well be unverifiable. In 2023, everyone knows that we are not a social media site or web host. The consensus is clear and unlikely to change. Based on the clear and convincing evidence that a banned sock-puppet wrote essentially the entire article, it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Bishi (footballer, born 1996)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable footballer created by a block-evading sock. In my Arabic searches, I can only get trivial coverage for the goalkeeper of this name, Abdullah Yahya Al-Bishi, who had an article at Abdullah Al-Bishi (footballer, born 2001) (deleted here). Nothing is coming up for this defender, which is hardly surprising given that the article claims that he is plying his trade in the Saudi Second Division, the third tier. The sources in the article are insufficient since they are all database sites or social media with the exception of Dawri Plus, which lacks the depth to truly count towards WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments and nomination; no evidence of notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:45, 14 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mure[edit]

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

Fails WP:JUDGE. One sentence in a book isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mauritius, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can find some coverage through Newspapers.com: e.g. 1. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe judges of the Supreme Court of Mauritius pass WP:JUDGE, even those that served during the country's colonial period. Furthermore, this one has been knighted, which is almost invariably held as an indication of notability. At least two obituaries are available on Google Books: [4], [5] and there's coverage available in period newspapers. Seems like a clear keep to me. Jfire (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationale presented by Jfire is convincing. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable: he was knighted in 1899; plenty of coverage of his death in 1909 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There would seem to be evidence of notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there is evidence of notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always considered knighthoods to easily meet the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1. And in any case, he clearly does meet WP:JUDGE as a judge of a supreme court. And had an obituary in The Times, also generally considered to be sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 15 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mure of Caldwell[edit]

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

No indication he satisfies WP:BIO. The current sources are of little use. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have corrected the references and added some more.Unoquha (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources cited in the article, e.g. 1, 2. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bulk of the sources are family papers. You need "mure" than that. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source I linked above is a selection of family papers, but it includes an introductory memoir of members of the family written by the editor: including a four page biography of the subject (pp. 14-17). The second source, a genealogical dictionary, includes a shorter biography (p. 836). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some 'Mure' references about the Kittochside feud, which interested wiki users may 'Reid'.Unoquha (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a historical figure. I also agree per above. Taung Tan (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments; there are some existing sources which establish notability and this is a historical figure. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. And, for good measure, community ban those partaking in the bastardized "humor" of puns above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough, I believe. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:24, 17 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huzaifa Aamir Rashadi[edit]

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

He was elected as Honorary secretary for 1 year only but after Covid-19 no elections held still. He never came out of AMU, Participated in Anti-CAA in AMU campus. Articles are passing mentions. He fought Assembly election from Didarganj Assembly constituency over the symbol of his father's party but wasn't elected. so it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. About the creator of the Article, they're working only things related to Rashtriya Ulama Council, as their username is also Shadab Ruc. They created pages for Aamir Rashadi Madni, Huzaifa Aamir Rashadi, Talha Aamir Rashadi, Azamgarh Jameatur Rashad Educational Society, Maulana Aamir Rashadi Madni. I think it's COI, Or Parties IT Cell is doing this. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Asia, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Misterrrrr (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 09:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 12 February 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 United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Possible search term; WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Roedel[edit]

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

Definitely not notable. I wasn't able to find any secondary sources about Curt Roedel besides the ones cited already. The cited information only contains very basic information too (stats only). RisingTzar (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE search, including newspapers.com. Jfire (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics, unfortunately. Seems to be one of the few US Olympians who don't meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nettie’s House of Spaghetti[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. The restaurant has been in the press for a new policy banning children under the age of 10. There are no other sources in the article about anything else other than this ban and no other in-depth sources were found in a Google search to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to me that there are two possible policy considerations for notability. Firstly the WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP. For me that's a transparent failure, it's a non-notable neighbourhood restaurant. The other is WP:EVENT. If we assume the banning of children is an event, I would say that Cat1 and Cat2 fail to meet the necessary level of media engagement. I guess that could change, but then wouldn't that be WP:TOOSOON? JMWt (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rather plainly failing to show this small and somewhat ordinary restaurant is noteworthy, even if it briefly hit the news once by announcing a policy. If it were to go on hitting the news, that would be another matter, but as JMWt states above, it's way too soon to tell if that will happen, and the WP:CRYSTALBALL approach isn't a reliable guide to the future. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, one news story about a business isn't enough to merit an article. An article might be possible in future if there's significant coverage of the subject. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and above comments; the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and may also violate WP:NOTNEWS

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @InterstellarGamer12321:@StarryNightSky11: You guys SURE this place fails both NCORP AND GNG? Sounds to me like WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. Americanfreedom (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Americanfreedom, I created this AfD. I looked at the article and the sources present. I searched online for sources. All I found were rather run-of-the-mill reviews and multiple articles about the under-ten-age policy. Nothing that I found meets the in-depth, non-routine coverage in reliable and verifiable independent sources that would be required to meet either NCORP or GNG. The link you provide offers the same list of reviews and recent news that I saw when I submitted the nomination. Can you point to any sources that would satisfy either NCORP or GNG, either in the article or that could be added? I am open to withdrawing the nomination, but I would need to see evidence to convince me to do so. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Did you even CLICK the link? Americanfreedom (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. I clicked the link above by the way, and there's the regular reviews that any local restaurant gets, and a few side mentions of the under 10 policy. Nothing in there I feel gives this restaurant enough to meet our guidelines. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:42, 17 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Weed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously kept in the yonder-years of 2007, when our criteria for inclusion was far lower. Non-notable losing political candidate. A WP:BEFORE search on newspapers.com only revealed typical run-of-the-mill local election coverage (such as [6]), which is not sufficient; thus, with no WP:SIGCOV, the subject fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Curbon7 (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea that a major-party candidate in a congressional election is automatically notable enough for inclusion regardless of whether they win or lose, which is the basis on which this was kept in 2007, has long since been deprecated — in 2023, we have a much clearer standard that candidates are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles only if either (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy (e.g. holding another notable office, attaining passage of our inclusion criteria in another occupation), or (b) they can be sourced well enough to demonstrate a credible claim that their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. This passes neither of those tests. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet GNG for me, until more coverage or sources can be found, it should be deleted. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 21:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 2006_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Virginia as a usual and appropriate outcome for unsuccessful candidates for the US House. --Enos733 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the article currently fails WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 14 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire River, Ontario[edit]

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

Uninhabited rail siding with no evidence of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isolated place on a map, where trains don't stop. No population, nothing notable takes place there. Unsure why it needs an article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, a bear attack was captured on camera in 2017 and this place is where it happened. I don't think that's GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is some awesome footage, though. I watched it on a computer with no sound, even, and the suspense was killing me after a certain dramatic point. Me, i think i could handle it with just the protective device shown, no problem! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already deleted once by PROD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Now to watch the bear footage....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND, as a "railway point" it doesn't qualify for any special treatment under GEOLAND and has to pass the GNG. I can't find much other than some news articles about the (scary!) bear attack. Hut 8.5 18:35, 14 February 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loick Ayina[edit]

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

Moved back into mainspace with the reason has played for the first team at Huddersfield, and might be about to at Dundee United but does not appear to meet any football guidelines or be otherwise notable yet. Has caromed back and forth between draft and main so bringing it here for discussion. Star Mississippi 01:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Scotland. Star Mississippi 01:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - playing for Huddersfield is irrelevant, what matters is significant coverage. There is one decent piece but that's all I can find, so it's not enough for now. Giant Snowman 10:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably just enough coverage as shown below, but the Huddersfield Town sources do not count towards GNG. Giant Snowman 19:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In my view there is just enough notability for a weak keep, cite 3 and 4 are not bad. There is some other sources online, but those are more tabloid, nevertheless the amount there gives me credence to want to keep the article. Playing in the FA Cup does give another point towards notability, to say it's irrelevant is just wrong. Notability is not just about the sources, it's also how the sources contribute to each other to build the picture. So many editors seem to forget to overall and focus on the bullet points. Govvy (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Govvy. @GaintSnowman: There are sources like [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11] among other sources. Young player with ongoing career in fully pro Scottish top flight on loan from English second tier team who he has already played in the FA Cup for, both leagues that receive lots of media coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the moment I would say this is borderline in terms of notability as he has only played on game at a fully professional level. Also his coverage in the media so far is relatively limited. This could change quickly if he starts to regularly appear in the Scottish top flight for Dundee United, although so far he has been an unused substitute. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It would seem that there's just enough to establish notability, although it's not a strong case. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page looks alright, in fairness: I've seen a lot of articles involving young players (especially in the English leagues) get created as soon as they make their professional debuts, and then get left in the dust once those footballers fall off the radar back again... At least, this page looks decently sourced and organized, and the fact Ayina is currently playing at a good level (Scottish Premiership) should prove to be even more beneficial. Oltrepier (talk) 10:07, 18 February 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 Natimuk. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nati Frinj[edit]

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

4hits on gnews, three of them abc. Not needed when everything in this article is already covered in Natimuk. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Extremely short and doesn't have any sources besides of the website that goes to a wayback machine of the apparent event website that is totally blank. Candeadly (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checked again and I looked at the wrong date, and there is many versions of the website on the wayback machine, but regardless, not enough. Candeadly (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Until reliable sources exist or can be found. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 04:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC is a reliable source. But agree that notability is questionable. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article as is is {{db-event}}, but most importantly a BEFORE shows there is neither the quality nor the quantity of sourcing needed. Star Mississippi 02:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC) ETA also fine with a redirect. Star Mississippi 04:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natimuk - GA Melbourne (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natimuk per GA Melbourne; as the nom says everything on the article is covered there. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natimuk per GA Melbourne; InterstellarGamer12321. Cabrils (talk) 03:33, 17 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maharathi Karna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD ended in no consensus and the notability tag from April 2022 remains. Let's decide once and for all if this film is notable or not and either delete the article or remove the tag.

Original AfD rationale: PROD removed with "Take it to AfD, Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema is no mean thing."

However, even if that is taken as a notable source (which it is), that leaves only 1 good source. The others are database sites, a newspaper ad, and a passing mention in another book.

Need more than just the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema to be notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exactly for the same reason it was kept in the first AfD. It's not only Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, it's also The Indian Express, another book by Ashok Raj. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI...the Indian Express link is just an ad for the film. The other book it just mentions it. Neither count towards notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: I should know that as I'm the one who's added it. I don't think the newspaper, back in 1944, would post ads for non-notable films. But anyway, it also posted a full review of the film. I've added it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment film review by The Indian Express, dated 31 March 1945, has been added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: Does it make you rethink your stand? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's closer to passing inclusion criteria, however it needs more input to close as a keep, otherwise it risks the same editor adding back the notability tag. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per the review by The Indian Express, this 1940s film is well before the internet so finding any review at all is good work, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: It's interesting though that in the previous AfD of this film, you gave it a vote keep and now, when another source has been added, it's a weak keep. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just enough secondary sources to fullfill notability requirements. Nothing gained in deleting the article. Daranios (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: It's reviewed by The Indian Express seems to be Good source. --- 👑Misterrrrr👑 (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 16 February 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otofuke Shrine[edit]

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

No sources with significant coverage, Fails WP:GNG Medarduss (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Medarduss (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, several mentions but no significant coverage found in Japanese. Dekimasuよ! 15:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 14 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oranda-zaka[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable per WP:GNG Medarduss (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Medarduss (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rather than being notable only as a street, this is a historically notable district similar in type to the Kobe foreign settlement. A search for "Dutch Slope" will probably bring up better sources, and the page could probably be moved there, but it is known by a few other names in English, so maybe that's why it is at a transliteration of the Japanese. Dekimasuよ! 15:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekimasu; there seems to be some notability, although the page might have to be moved. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep assuming someone adds at least one the the books available on Google. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient WP:SIGCOV by reliable independent secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:35, 19 February 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Sharma Menon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOL. She is not an elected politician. She is only a member of National Executive of Aam Aadmi Party. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete An unelected politician, fails WP:NPOL. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC) -WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep elected or not, the subject has received significant coverage over the years, excluding interviews, and press releases. Because of such significant coverage in reliable sources, subject passes general notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The 1st AFD resulted in a "No consensus" decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not satisfying NPOL is not grounds for deletion, it only indicates presumed notability is not accorded. Menon is considered a founding member of the AAP,^[1] multi-year, independent, SIGCOV, RS available.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] While these pieces^[6]^[7] are interviews, given the sources, they do confirm the subject has a national profile. I've not looked extensively, but a precusory search also shows material available in Marathi.

References

^ Bose, Mrityunjay (30 April 2022). "AAP appoints Preeti Sharma Menon as Mumbai unit chief". Deccan Herald.
^ Tatke, Sukhada (5 June 2014). "Maharashtra AAP leaders withdraw resignations". The Hindu.
^ "Pune: Real estate baron files defamation suit against AAP leader Preeti Sharma Menon". DNA India. Press Trust of India. 15 October 2016.
^ Mastakar, Ronak (18 January 2023). "Shinde-Fadnavis govt invited PM Modi to Mumbai to hide its failure: AAP's Preeti Sharma Menon". Mid-day.
^ Iyer, Aishwarya S. (9 May 2020). "Abused Over Tweet on Migrant Workers, AAP Leader Files Complaint". TheQuint.
^ Menon, Preeti Sharma (18 April 2021). "My life changed drastically because of the movement". The Week.
^ Jog, Sanjay (28 December 2013). "In Maharashtra, ruling alliance & BJP united in loot: Preeti Sharma Menon". Business Standard India.

Passes the GNG/BASIC. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help if some of the sources mentioned here found their way into the article being discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has significant coverage and reliable sources. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:53, 16 February 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 List of hospital fires in Romania during the COVID-19 pandemic. Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Socola hospital fire[edit]

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

No indication of notability: one death and no other casualties, was only attended by two fire engines, article doesn’t mention any form of notability. greyzxq ^talk 11:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Romania. greyzxq ^talk 11:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ second of a series of deadly hospital fires in Romania during the COVID-19 pandemic. In general there were over 10 hospital fires, though not all of them were deadly. All of this obviously provoked a scandal in Romania. There is a lot of sources talking about these fires [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. The Socola fire was also reported by major Romanian and Moldovan media outlets [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] (this one is the Romanian national news agency). Note as well that there still were media reports following the fire, see this article from 4 January 2021 [25] (not cited here, that is, there is still more room for expansion). There is no reason why this information should be erased from Wikipedia. Also, number of deaths does not define notability. Super Ψ Dro 12:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If these fires happening during the COVID-19 pandemic is the only claim for notability, maybe create an article called Romanian COVID-19 hospital fires or something like that instead. Then you would be able to include all of the fires no matter their notability because the article clearly includes why it is notable. With this specific fire however, it is not notable enough for its own article, especially because there is only one casualty, and it didn’t cause much damage to the hospital because it only went on for an hour. Furthermore, all of the sources you have included are Romanian, meaning it didn’t get much - if any - international coverage. greyzxq ^talk 12:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That it was deadly also adds up to notability. Hospital fires that caused no deaths don't have articles. Super Ψ Dro 13:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A fire with just one death isn't notable though. greyzxq ^talk 13:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in your opinion. Super Ψ Dro 14:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, CT55555 has created a list page for the hospital fires. Apparently there was another deadly fire that I missed, which discourages me a bit on keeping this one as my aim was making pages for all the deadly fires. Also due to the clear support for merge. Super Ψ Dro 08:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED, contrary to what is claimed above I can not find any evidence that coverage of this fire lasted more than one news cycle, the Stirile Pro TV article is literally just a news report of the event with no new information added, and is clearly part of the same news cycle. Concur that a more general article on COVID-related Romanian hospital fires sounds like a good idea. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I got both the link and the newspaper wrong as that Știrile Pro TV is from 25 December 2020. This is what I meant [26]. There's more articles since the initial wave. Super Ψ Dro 14:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — nearly all direct coverage was in the first day, with a couple stories trickling in after a few days or weeks. And at just one death, it doesn’t appear notable. However, I agree we should explore an umbrella article about pandemic-era Romanian hospital fires. Some of the content from here could be merged there. — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new article about the string of fires, which does appear notable. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after last relist didn't elicit any more participation. And, we can not Merge an existing article into a non-existing article. If that is your preference, then please create a new article as a Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the hospital fires don't seem to be related, is a new article about the string of fires warranted? Is there any coverage that links all 3 fires and reports on them as a series/string of incidents? Mooonswimmer 20:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Those wanting a Merge should create an article this can be merged into or it might simply be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I cannot decide on notability, but in case this helps: List of hospital fires in Romania during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course anyone can change the formatting to make it more narrative if they want. CT55555(talk) 02:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge: Keep but merge to an existing article about incidents of fires, which are notable. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is an article about a very local event which passes neither GNG nor NEVENT. There's no diversity of sources, no lasting impact, and no assertion this tragedy is more important than any other such minor incident. It's fine with me if the phenomenon of Romanian fires due to Covid can muster enough sources as an article to pass GNG, but only if sources are presented the multiple fires have been treated together by RS as notable phenomenon, AND the phenomenon meets NEVENT. I'm not seeing that myself, but my inability to speak the language handicaps me doing a reasonable BEFORE. If this were a similar hospital fire the US, I think it unlikely to meet NEVENT regardless of available RS. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 16 February 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.

[1] Bose, Mrityunjay (30 April 2022). "AAP appoints Preeti Sharma Menon as Mumbai unit chief". Deccan Herald.

[2] Tatke, Sukhada (5 June 2014). "Maharashtra AAP leaders withdraw resignations". The Hindu.

[3] "Pune: Real estate baron files defamation suit against AAP leader Preeti Sharma Menon". DNA India. Press Trust of India. 15 October 2016.

[4] Mastakar, Ronak (18 January 2023). "Shinde-Fadnavis govt invited PM Modi to Mumbai to hide its failure: AAP's Preeti Sharma Menon". Mid-day.

[5] Iyer, Aishwarya S. (9 May 2020). "Abused Over Tweet on Migrant Workers, AAP Leader Files Complaint". TheQuint.

[6] Menon, Preeti Sharma (18 April 2021). "My life changed drastically because of the movement". The Week.

[7] Jog, Sanjay (28 December 2013). "In Maharashtra, ruling alliance & BJP united in loot: Preeti Sharma Menon". Business Standard India.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]