Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 20 January 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot Restore Rx[edit]

Reboot Restore Rx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is obviously promotional. The user that created this, JHansonHD, already has had a previous article deleted. The article was about HorizonDataSys, the developers of the software this article is about. The HorizonDataSys article was deleted for [Unambiguous advertising or promotion]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primprazed (talk • contribs) 10:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 23:21, 21 January 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. Consensus is that changes to the article since the AFD started have demostrated notability and justification for a standalone article. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antistia (wife of Pompey)[edit]

Antistia (wife of Pompey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect contested. Meets WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:BIO1E since nothing is known about this person other than the divorce, and the article is almost entirely a description of people other than the subject. Also, a sizeable chunk of this article seems to have been copied without attribution from Publius Antistius, and perhaps other pages.

Should be deleted or, if that isn't possible, redirected to Pompey, Antistia gens or Publius Antistius. Avilich (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: With the reminder that the article's content bears little merit of whether the subject is notable, I'm leaning towards this one not being independently notable. All of the sources describe her in relation to her father and her husband (despite it being my field, I really hate classics in times like this). A redirect to somewhere with expansion at Pompey and Publius Antistius would make the most sense; sources that may be helpful in this regard include [1] and [2]. Curbon7 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep Per WP:HEY. The article has improved considerably and I think does provide independent notability. Curbon7 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with options. Redirect (probably to 'Publius Antistius') I don't think we're in WP:INVALIDBIO here - Antistia isn't just notable because she was the wife of Pompey, but because she is an important part of the events around Pompey's trial, first marriage and divorce, all of which are important parts of the historical record. Granted, she would not have entered the historical record but for her proximity to another person, but that is true of a large number of unquestionably notable people: Anne of Cleves, Olympias or Calpurnia (wife of Caesar) spring to mind quickly. Indeed, it's a sad truth that most of the women we know from Classical antiquity are at least primarily identified in the sources as relations - mothers, wives or daughters - of men.
Part of the section on the Antistia gens is summarised (sometimes a little too closely, which is almost certainly my doing and fault) and expanded from material available in the article on Publius Antistius: I agree that should certainly be/have been marked in the edit summary, but I think we're within the territory of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Section templates and summary style inasfar as When a section is a summary of another article that provides a full exposition of the section, a link to that article should appear immediately under the section heading, which it (partially) is, and does.
I've been thinking on this one since you raised the issue yesterday: Pompey already has a banner saying that the article is too long, so I don't think merging this article into there would make much sense. The standard for WP:BIO is significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Antistia definitely has coverage (and those sources raise material about her which certainly has a place somewhere on Wikipedia); the question-mark, I think, is whether that coverage counts as significant (edit: it certainly is in the two sources linked by User:Curbon7 above.), and so whether it belongs in a stand-alone article, particularly as she is often bundled with Aemilia (Pompey's second wife, for whom he divorced her) and sometimes (as in the Haley article cited in the text) with his other wives.
I think a page on Wives of Pompey the Great (in the vein of Wives of Henry VIII), into which this article might be merged, would be a good way to solve both problems - as a collective, they easily pass WP:BIO, and their coverage in the Pompey article could therefore be slimmed down.
In the short term, if the consensus here is to delete, I'd recommend a merge into Publius Antistius. Antistia gens is a general run-through of many members of that gens - it doesn't cover any individual in detail, so merging there would either unbalance Antistia gens or require the deletion of a large amount of useful content from the current Antistia (wife of Pompey) article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Thinking further on this, I think I've talked myself round: the marriage and divorce of Pompey and Antistia are the key notable events in question here, and Antistia (wife of Pompey) should redirect to whatever page most fully discusses them. I've created Draft:Marriages of Pompey the Great, in the hope that eventually we can summarise the wives with independent articles and cobble together what's known about those who don't, and then have that page as a WP:SPLIT from Pompey, and probably change the redirect for Antistia (wife of Pompey) to point there once it's ready. Vote changed to match. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the discussion below (and experience in writing the draft on 'Marriages of Pompey the Great', I'm no longer sure I want to fully stand by any of the above. Struck through.UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the so-called useful content seems to have been copied without attribution from what I myself wrote at Publius Antistius, which is the exact opposite of how a merge should work and is a reason to not retain the content. The comparison with Anne of Cleves and Olympias is incorrect, since they both have received significant coverage of their own deeds independent of their relationship with other persons. The available coverage of Antistia, however, is simply that she married Pompey and was divorced (INVALIDBIO). The political background and implications of it are significant coverage of Pompey, Sulla, and her father, not of herself. Avilich (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Pompey needs to be cleaned up anyway so there's no reason why this couldn't have been written there. Avilich (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't have strong opinions about the most suitable target, but despite what UndercoverClassicist suggests I do not think that either of the sources Curbon links to "certainly" count as significant coverage: Lightman's encyclopedia entry on Antistia barely manages to eke out eight sentences by making half of them solely about her father, and tells us only three facts about her: she married Pompey, Pompey divorced her, she committed suicide. The Haley article mentions the same bare facts, except that it doesn't mention her supposed suicide. Is that "significant coverage"? I'm not sure it is. Even if it is, I'm not sure it's useful to have an article on Antistia when exactly the same facts can be covered in two sentences in either or both of Antistius' or Pompey's articles. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to lean in a similar direction: that when you come to the Pompey article, there should be a brief summary of his five marriages, one of which takes you somewhere when you click the name 'Antistia' to go into the details of the marriage, its background and the divorce - at the moment, that's this article, but I can see a strong case for making it a section of Publius Antistius, which can then be expanded with the material from this article that isn't already in it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Pompeius, or that and any other relevant articles. I'm not voting to delete because there is a good chance that some of the contents aren't duplicated at the relevant articles, even if much of the text was split off from one of them without attribution (and the lack of attribution is an issue separate from deletion, IMO). If the editor who created and has been the main curator of this page is willing to make certain that the topic is adequately covered under the two or three other articles that this relates to, then change this title into a redirect to the most suitable of those, that should be fine. The difference between delete and merge is that with delete, we simply wipe this article and all traces of it from the encyclopedia, without first making an effort to ensure that the topic is adequately covered in other articles, and without leaving a redirect for anyone who might be searching for more information about the subject. It could be that all of the useful content already exists in said articles, but with delete we don't even bother making sure—it's a shot in the dark on the assumption that there's nothing useful here—so the correct procedure is merge, even if nothing winds up being copied over after a review. P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is not really about the lady herself, about whom we probably know next to nothing but her name and parentage. It is much more about Pompey and his marriages and associated politics. Accordingly it belongs in the marriages section of the article on Pompey. This could usefully be expanded a little, despite this repeating what appeared earlier in the article. That section ought to appears before later portrayals and cultural depictions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to come to an agreed upon Redirect/Merge target by those who know something about this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as most contents aren't directly about subject but instead other people. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lightman & Lightman; Haley; and Hughes all discuss Antistia with a focus on her and in the case of Haley what this marriage says about women's experience. This is not simply about the gens Antistia nor just about Pompey (the copying is no ground for deletion and is easily repaired by WP:RIA). Furius (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pompey: both Publius Antistius and Pompey could be expanded with content from this article, but she is notable (in the common meaning of the word, not the Wikipedia meaning) as the wife of Pompey. Therefore, that is the better redirect target. TL;DR merge with both but redirect to Pompey. HouseBlastertalk 22:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Furius argument.★Trekker (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Furius. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also per Furius. There is no PROMO here (obviously); and a strong case of WP:PRESERVE. 31.187.2.233 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Why are you citing promo on someone who died 2100 years ago? Curbon7 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The encyclopedic nature of this content has been convincingly demonstrated, but the need for a standalone page has not been explicitly discussed enough; more discussion of this point would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as stand-alone because the politics surrounding this marriage is encyclopedic; I would argue further argue that we could probably do with a Wives of Pompey article, similar to Wives of Henry VIII or List of Brigham Young's wives. jengod (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is an informative and interesting article and has good sources Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A page Marriages of Pompey the Great has been created, which is superior to all other proposed redirect targets and contains the exact same copied text, so the debate seems settled and the article should be redirected there (I should also note that the above comment on the sources is flatly false since none of the sources Lightman, Haley and Hughes discuss the present subject in depth -- but they do discuss the subject of the newly-created page, so a redirect to that solves that issue). Avilich (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: the draft was written, by me, with the working assumption that this page would eventually be deleted - I do not consider it suitable for publication as-is and am surprised that you would unilaterally move it without making significant improvements or consulting the only editor who had previously worked on it. I find it difficult to see this as a move in good faith. Whether another article exists which could or should contain the same information is not relevant to whether the subject of this article passes notability. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Furius. Unilateral publishing of the draft above to force their deletion argument to win is not confidence inspiring, to say the least. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad faith, retaliatory vote from someone who disagrees with the publishing of the draft. The draft is in good condition and is the ideal place to place the content which the keep voters want to keep, thus a compromise. Avilich (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich: It's not bad faith or retaliatory because I have no vested interest in the matter of the page move, here I merely agree with Furius that it should be kept, as do a great many others. Separately, I think it's patently obvious why you disruptively and unilaterally moved the thing from draftspace; it being in line with draft policies does not dissuade from that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an appropriate way of dealing with the basic concerns about the subject. While Antistia doesn't really seem to emerge as a distinct individual in any of these articles, she nonetheless is a central figure in a subtopic of the life of Pompeius, and as several participants in the discussion have suggested, an article of this type provides adequate space for covering the subject. If everything usable from this article is there, then I think it would be fine to redirect this title there, thus preserving the page history—along with this discussion—should anybody go looking for it, or wonder why it was changed from a stand-alone article into a redirect. As for the process by which the new article was created, clearly it rubbed some of the participants the wrong way; but I suspect we can all benefit from the reminder that even experienced editors have feelings, and want to feel that their opinions are respected despite disagreement. I know that I always feel like I'm learning from these dust-ups, even when I'm only on the periphery of the argument. P Aculeius (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marriages of Pompey the Great seems to me to be the current best redirect/merge target. With the greatest respect for those arguing to keep this article as a standalone, several of whom I have worked with in the past, I remain unconvinced that the sources cited provide sufficient in depth coverage to justify the standalone article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is better than nothing, but the second sentence comes close to a statement that such an article shouldn't be the only way that such information is presented and I note that the section on Antistia ends up substantially longer than any of the others. So, it doesn't change my opinion that the Antistia article should be kept. Furius (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is partly a result of the half-finished nature of the article, but that is my perspective as well: given the nature of the sources, the composite article ends up with this strange, top-heavy structure which, it could be argued, gives the impression that Antistia is disproportionately important versus the other wives, particularly those who already have their own main articles. The 'obvious' solution to me would be to slim down the 'Antistia' section to a summary, with the bulk of the information in the stand-alone article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do not agree with Aviliich and I suggest they argument much more transparent in future deletion discussions if they were to take part in them again. Its an informative article and the other article was released into mainspace without the consent by the draft creator nor have they been consulted. I find this a troubling precedent as in the case a release of a draft into article mainspace happens without the consent of the draft creator they might lose their possibility for a DYK they feel comfortable with etc. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there is enough detail here to justify a stand-alone article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are enough sources. T8612 (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I have stricken through previous votes) - the new material on Antistia's post-Classical reception, sourced to secondary sources, swings the balance for me. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Likewise, I'm also convinced by the content in Antistia (wife of Pompey)#Cultural depictions that a separate article is warranted for this topic. Thank you to the many editors that have put in substantial work in this discussion and related pages to improve Wikipedia's coverage in this area and reach consensus about the best way to organize it. Jfire (talk) 16:19, 27 January 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! 23:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mjunction[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mjunction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no indication of notability. The references in the article are routine announcements or non-independent as they are people from the company providing commentary. I did a WP:BEFORE and was unable to find references meeting WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 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! 05:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Talib Shah[edit]

Mohammad Talib Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject clearly fails WP:ENT, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There is also a rejected Draft Draft:Mohammad Talib Shah --- Misterrrrr (talk) 15:20, 14 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! 21:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom. I just draftified Draft:Mohd Talib filmography as well. Silikonz💬 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – doesn't appear to meet any of the relevant notability criteria. In addition to the rejected draft, Mohd Talib (a redirect to an article about a Malaysian weightlifter) was protected last year after multiple attempts to turn it into an article about this actor, see the revision history. --bonadea contributions talk 21:14, 24 January 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) 23:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muskan Jindal[edit]

Muskan Jindal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable government official. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 21 January 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! 23:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tahoe Fund[edit]

Tahoe Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of third-party media coverage in reliable sources. As always, organizations are not inherently entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, so just using their own content about themselves to verify their existence is not sufficient -- the notability test is the reception of third-party coverage in media independent of itself, demonstrating that it has been a subject of independent coverage and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because I have never heard of the Tahoe Fund, and since the news never talks about it, it makes me agree with the reason for deletion. PWSmith1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Some SIGCOV ([3], [4], [5], [6]) and several other passing mentions in news coverage makes me think there's a plausible case for notability. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too much promotional material in sources and article. Sources are primary and include 2011/12 annual report, Board of Directors, Our Projects A source mentioned above is more about "Colin West, founder and executive director of Clean Up The Lake". The url includes "project-complete-clean-up-the-lake-team-removes...". The contents of the article includes, "The project was made possible by a $100,000 matching donation from Tahoe Blue Vodka. "Tahoe Blue Vodka sponsored this effort because we place tremendous value on the health of Lake Tahoe, not only because our vodka is inspired by its waters, but because it is such a huge part of what makes our community so special,". "Contributions also came in from more than 135 Tahoe Fund donors, including Vail Resorts, and the Nevada Division of State Lands’ Lake Tahoe License Plate program and other local grant giving foundations." Near the end is some mention of the Tahoe Fund. This source is about the subject. Although an admirable endeavor there is just not enough to support notability of "Tahoe Fund" as an encyclopedic entry. It is not the focus of Wikipedia to be a marketing or public relations outlet or a charity promotion. An article is not supposed to include press releases and certainly shouldn't be just a white or yellow pages listing of businesses and chairties. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I could find (that didn't come from the organization itself) were 2 short news articles: TV4 and Mountain Democrat. Only the former is ostensibly about the organization. There's just not enough for GNG. Lamona (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH.Onel5969 TT me 21:58, 28 January 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. Improvements made to this article over the last week have led to a consensus to Keep it. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriele Bonci[edit]

Gabriele Bonci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a chef, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for chefs. The notability claim here is that he had a TV show, which is not an automatic free pass in the absence of adequate sourcing, but the only reference cited here at all is Netflix rather than third-party analytical coverage of his significance -- and other than "his TV show existed", the article otherwise consists entirely of biographical trivia with no bearing on his notability at all, as gleaned from Netflix rather than third-party coverage.
Further, this was moved within the past 24 hours from sandbox to mainspace with the edit summary "There are just so many sources out there that I'm not going to worry about this one", but that's not how this works -- not every web page that might happen to have his name in it is necessarily a notability-building source, so just saying that there are lots of sources out there isn't an exemption from actually having to cite any of them to prove that he passes GNG.
No objection to returning this to sandbox, and obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it's written and sourced better than this -- but in this form, it's not at all ready for prime time. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and Italy. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He's opening restaurants in the USA and wrote a book [7] and [8]. Seems to just be at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: GNG aside, writing a BLP this long without independent sources is a brightline BLP violation that should be taken out of mainspace. If the sources turn up for a GNG pass, and they're implemented, it can come back. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC) strike per improvements to the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I placed this in article space because I believe it's quite likely there are multiple sources in Italian, and having it visible makes it more likely Italian-speakers will see it. He wouldn't have been featured on Chef's Table if he didn't have a plausible claim to notability; literally every chef from an English-speaking country about whom there's a Chef's Table episode has proven to be notable. I think this is a systemic bias thing. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • i would agree in a lot of cases, but I tend to ditch "there is no deadline"-style thinking when BLP gets involved. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at any rate, I've added some sources. Still hoping someone will find some Italian ones, as I think those are really what's needed for an article on someone whose primary notability is within Italy. I kind of hate that what we have here is an English-speakers' view of an Italian. It feels really not ideal. Valereee (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep independent, international sources likr the Washington Post amd Chicgo Trib. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMensa (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: Aside from what has been mentioned above the subject was on Netflix. Netflix is available in over 190 countries. According to Rotten Tomatoes the show "profiles the most renowned chefs in the world." This source on Chef's Table states "...series delving into the lives of acclaimed chefs from around the world." Who are we to argue with that? -- Otr500 (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears adequately notable due to coverage in diverse sources that is more than a mere mention of his name. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:40, 28 January 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! 23:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Roycroft[edit]

Sean Roycroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, couldn't find any significant coverage; never even satisfied any of the old football notability guidelines either, as he never played in a fully-professional league. Jellyman (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not think he meets notability. I cannot see any obvious significant coverage of his playing career and he did not play outside the bottom two divisions. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 24 January 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! 23:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

God Analog[edit]

God Analog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim on offer here is that they exist, which isn't enough in and of itself in the absence of passing WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but five of the seven footnotes here are simple directory entries in Genius or Discogs.com, which are not notability-building sources at all, and the other two are Q&A interviews in which the band leader is talking about himself in the first person, which would be fine for verification of facts but can't clinch notability all by themselves in lieu of any sources that represent third-party coverage or analysis.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but nothing here, either in the content or the sourcing, is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning - I appreciate the feedback. However, given the notable members of the group and coverage in Billboard (highly notable publication), I believe there is case for notability. Certainly not an A-list, but notable.
I'll openly admit I'm new to article writing and am certain I can use advice, so if you'd provide me what more is needed, I would appreciate it! 2601:640:C700:FB90:7872:E1D3:400F:8E0B (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Q&A interview in Billboard, in which a band member is answering questions in the first person, is not sufficient in and of itself. We would need to see several pieces of third-party coverage, in which the band is being written about and analyzed in the third person by professional journalists or music critics, before notability was established here. The notability test is not "they exist", it's "their accomplishments have made them a subject of journalism and analysis by people other than themselves". Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 21 January 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) 20:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Estres[edit]

Gabrielle Estres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an entrepreneur and writer, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for entrepreneurs or writers. The only notability claim being made here is that she and her work exist, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of third-party analysis of the significance of her work -- but this is referenced entirely to her books metaverifying their own presence in online bookstores and/or glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about things other than herself, which means there's absolutely no indication of coverage which has her as its subject.
And for added bonus, even the criticism-of-Facebook "coverage" consists mainly of one hit reduplicated multiple times: original article twice, Italian translation of same article twice more, and even the last Facebook-related hit is a deadlink that based on its date might well have just been another reaggregation of that same article yet again. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have not found sources to support WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR notability online or at the WP library, and the 2018 'criticism' of Facebook is quite limited and appears at the end of the WSJ article: Gabrielle Estres, a 34-year-old industrial adviser in London, deleted her Facebook account this week after the recent data issues at the company, but said even before that she had been using it less plus a two-sentence quote. Full text is available for the WSJ ProQuest 2016493535 and Dow Jones wire feed copy ProQuest 2016896566 cited (including as reprints) in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. One single story in WSJ does not make significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 27 January 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 14:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Chan[edit]

Harris Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person with questionable grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The notability claim here is that he's a former regional (but not world) record holder in an obscure special-interest competition discipline, which is not "inherently" notable enough to confer an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume and depth of sourcing about him -- but the referencing here consists of one primary source profile on the self-published website of a directly affiliated organization and two news articles that briefly namecheck his existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, which is nowhere near enough to claim that he would pass GNG.
And the article, further, also contains quite a bit of background biographical information that isn't supported by any of the sources, suggesting the possibility that there's been some conflict of interest editing by himself or his friends in the past.
This was probably fine by the inclusion standards of when the article was created in 2009, but by the inclusion standards of 2023 it's much closer to a WP:BLP1E than it is to passing the enduring significance test. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I did some research to see if there were any other secondary sources I could find providing more coverage, and I was able to find this article - but it is really only some local coverage about the individual's hopes for an upcoming competition, not about any notable achievement in itself. So I agree that this seems very much like a WP:BLP1E, with a single event that did not even gain proper coverage at the time for any independent articles regarding it. Meszzy2 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article does not "adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy".
  • Delete I found some bare mentions outside of speedcuber sources. I did add a reference for the claim of his #1 position in school, but nothing else of significance. There is a UK Times article that I cannot view that may have something. I'll check back. (p.s. I think this may have begun as an AUTOBIO but hasn't been updated.) Lamona (talk) 21:24, 26 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VideoWave[edit]

VideoWave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Furthermore an obsolete article. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews in WSJ, CNet, techcrunch pass WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage as listed above. Furthermore, what is an "obsolete article"?
DonaldD23 talk to me 19:48, 21 January 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 Draftify. It's unclear to me why the nominator brought this article to AFD when they were not seeking deletion and could have moved it to Draft space themselves. Also, an article being in Draft space doesn't protect it from all criteria for speedy deletion so I'd work on removing promotional language or it could get tagged again in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cohost[edit]

Cohost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although I am the creator of this page (which was originally located in draftspace at Draft:Cohost), it was moved to mainspace without my involvement and subsequently tagged for speedy deletion as G11. I am contesting the speedy both because I don't personally think it approaches G11 territory, and I feel this needs to be brought to a discussion so that the editors who expanded and moved the article in good faith may have a chance to weigh in. While I don't feel that the article is fit for mainspace at this time, as it does little else but describe the subject in a manner that may be interpreted as promotional (I think it's just weak owing to a lack of available substantive sources), I do not think outright deletion is the solution here- it should instead be reverted back to its original location in draftspace for further work. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pinging @Clumgiwajango, Blacklemon67, Twotwos, who contributed to the article and discussed its move to mainspace on the talk page, so that they may voice their opinion on the issue. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! I found the draft because I was intending to write a stub article about Cohost myself. I was going to use the article from The Verge as a third-party source, as well as some of the other news articles that have been written comparing Cohost with other sites. I feel that Cohost is notable as it is one of the handful of social media websites that have been touted as "twitter alternatives" in the wake of Elon Musk's acquisition. Notability also comes from its unique art scene, as covered by that The Verge article.
    Conflict of interest disclosure: I was interviewed for that The Verge article about the posts I've made on the website (I'm referred to as Blackle Mori.) I'm not otherwise affiliated with ASSC or Cohost.
    I found the draft to be pretty close to how I would've written it, though I do agree some of the wording comes across as promotional, especially in the "features" section. I feel like we could remove that section entirely---I feel its notability as an emerging art scene could stand to go elsewhere, perhaps just a single sentence at the end. If we're going to reference any of Cohost's features I feel like it would be more neutral to cite/quote the reviews/opinions of reputable tech journalists.
    I wouldn't mind this being moved back to draft to be worked on more, but I would like to hear the specific objections that caused it to come across as promotional and marked for speedy deletion. Blacklemon67 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Onel5969 in case they'd like to voice their specific reasons for tagging the article as G11. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it currently reads like a promotional brochure. Onel5969 TT me 01:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of the "features" section was not sufficiently sourced, using only primary sources such as the site's own policy/how-to pages. While I don't outright oppose using primary sources to justify certain claims, I do think they were far overused there. After trimming it, the promotional issue seems somewhat solved, but there's also not much left there. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 01:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello everyone, first time for me participating in one of these so sorry if I get anything wrong. I suppose I should explain the move to mainspace as I'm the one who actually pushed the button: at the time, I did think the article could still be improved, and read as promotional in parts, but also that these improvements were unlikely to happen within a reasonable time while the article was still in draftspace, and it was at least good enough to survive as an article. Admittedly this reasoning may have been mostly impatience - and now we've ended up here, which is awkward...
    Agreed with Blackle on the subject of the article content. Certainly fixable, so, on account of that I'd like to tentatively suggest keep in line with the suggestion to fix problems by editing instead of deletion at WP:ATD (and I see that silvia has helped on that I've been writing this!). I'm not strongly opposed to moving back to draftspace, but I'm not sure this is necessary, and leaving it up with the Advert tag would probably help attract attention.
    Not sure it matters but I will say that I have an account on Cohost and generally like it, but have no conflict of interest beyond this (which is probably better described as a bias?). twotwos (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate in draftspace. Wait until June 2023 (a year after the public beta ended) to see how much significant coverage it gets besides the articles seen during launch. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:37, 23 January 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 13:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Professional Spring Football League[edit]

Trinity Professional Spring Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was draftified with the hopes of improvement, then returned to mainspace without improvements. Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes GNG. Currently sourced with primary and non-reliable sources, and three database entries. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 21 January 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 13:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avdhesh palawat[edit]

Avdhesh palawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Sources are press releases and the like. Speedy deletion contested, so bringing it here. CharredShorthand (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment speedy deletion was contested by User:Venomextractor, an account having significant edit overlap with User:My inbais. User:My inbais was creator of Avdhesh Palawat, which was moved to draft twice on notability and sourcing. The first draft was speedy deleted as spam, and the creator is blocked from editing their own user talk page. User:My inbais also created Neterion (speedied then draftified), source of one of the cites for this article, and de-orphaned the article soon after the AFD was started. COI and sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry are pretty obvious here. 2A01:4C8:60:DEA0:6453:D046:76D6:434F (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, fails WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk). 18:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I only find press-releases, one mentioning how he bought a magazine. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG as pointed out by above editors. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 06:00, 22 January 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 13:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sailabala Mohanta[edit]

Sailabala Mohanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being Chairperson of a Tehsil doesn't passes WP:NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Municipal politicians without significant press coverage fail WP:POLITICIAN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject doesn't passes WP:NPOL. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Odisha. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: neither the nomination nor any of the subsequent contributions actually articulate grounds for deletion (simple assertions of non-notability are not reasoning). Not satisfying NPOL is not grounds for deletion, it simply means presumed notability cannot be accorded. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:25, 28 January 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! 01:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhaya Sahu[edit]

Abhaya Sahu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. He is unelected politician. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:42, 21 January 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Vaghela[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dinesh Vaghela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creator of the article is a sockpuppet and has WP:COI with the article. The article fails WP:NPOL because he contested for 2014 Indian general elections from Ahmedabad East Lok Sabha constituency and lost the election. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:24, 21 January 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hardeo Singh[edit]

Hardeo Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:NPOL. He contested for 2014 Indian general election which he lost. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:19, 21 January 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! 01:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Kerkar[edit]

Swati Kerkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:NPOL. She was a candidate for Lok Sabha election. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:17, 21 January 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. per WP:SNOW as well (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dharavi Bank (2022 web series)[edit]

Dharavi Bank (2022 web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Streaming TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE stories for a TV series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:33, 21 January 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! 05:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamshed Jan Mohammad[edit]

Jamshed Jan Mohammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sawal 700 Crore Dollar Ka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable director of only Non-Notable film, doesn't meet with WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG, reference are nothing to stay on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Film also fails to meet WP:NFILM, references are unreliable and primary, few of reliable sources not discussing the primarily the subject but reviews with other movies. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:56, 14 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! 06:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kim Possible characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Kim Possible characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page was previously nominated for deletion in 2007 and subsequently restored a few months later. However, site standards have increased dramatically in the many years since, while the same can't be said for this page. The bulk consists of barely-sourced fancruft more fit for a fandom wiki, and there seems to be no reliable secondary sources that justify this degree of coverage of any character other than the three that already have their own page. With that said, I believe a new nomination is long overdue. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kim Possible (character), Rufus (Kim Possible), and Shego have their own articles. Regardless, character lists have always been acceptable as legitimate split off articles. If the information is too long for the main article, you toss it off on its own article, just like we do lists of episodes and lists of awards. Dream Focus 22:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I don't know of any policy toward character lists, but considering that Kim Possible is a pretty large and well-known franchise (not just a singular show), I think that a character list is not undue. A trim may be needed, however. Also, citing the first AfD is moot; it was deleted then because there was a "minor characters" list already. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a subtopic of Kim Possible, which is here presented as a separate article, but the notability for the topic is clearly established. We just keep an additional article for the topic due to WP:LENGTH concerns. To be clear, WP:INHERITED does not apply because a notable topic is nowhere limited in policy to only one article. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a subtopic of Kim Possible and for the overall notability of the fictional cast. The list may need a clean-up, but it's preferable to individual articles for every single character. Some characters have separate articles, and the rest belong in the list. Archrogue (talk) 23:08, 23 January 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) 06:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours (TV series)[edit]

Rumours (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not easy to search but I didn't see any coverage of the show, and this article is completely unsourced. Seeing as it only lasted one season and was cancelled after less than half of its run, I doubt it's that well-remembered or covered. QuietHere (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. QuietHere (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The question is in where you search; for a show that aired almost 20 years ago, Google ain't gonna cut it. Simple archive search got me up to five citations, which is more than enough. (Also, spoiler alert: no show that airs on the CBC is ever going to go entirely uncovered at all — shows that do well are going to get coverage because they're popular, shows that don't do well are going to get coverage because that provides an opportunity for commercial media to take potshots at the CBC for airing a show that didn't do well, and the end result is that no CBC show ever goes entirely without coverage. The key, again, is knowing where to find it.) Bearcat (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Agreed, this relates to WP:NTEMP too. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a perfectly fair call. As a non-Canadian, I would not know these things nor where to look for this type of coverage, especially given it appears none of the articles you added are available online. Assuming that you haven't completely made these articles up then it appears the coverage is good after all. I'm not going to withdraw this just yet simply because I can't verify these articles' existence myself, but I'll put my trust in the process. QuietHere (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have a rule that our sources all have to be Googleable web pages, or that print-only sourcing retrieved from books or newspaper archiving databases is inadmissible. A lot of legitimate article topics would have to be deleted if that were the case, because a lot of things had their peak prominence before there was a web. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything opposed to that. I simply said that I can't personally vet these sources because I don't have access to a Canadian newspaper archive which would contain the material. That doesn't mean the sources are bad, just that I can't confirm anything about them with my own eyes and thus wouldn't feel comfortable withdrawing based on what is essentially a blind trust. QuietHere (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than enough coverage in Proquest that is accessible through Wikipedia Library sources to make it clear that this is notable! If you don't have the tools to assess Canadian articles, then you'd be best to stay away from them! And how even if you thought this should be deleted, CBC (SRC) also did the earlier French version which won 6 Geminis! Perhaps this page should expand coverage of that version, but 6 Geminis and an AFD! Can you, User:QuietHere, please withdraw this! Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a completely flawed BEFORE by User:QuietHere. Why have they not yet withdrawn this horrific nomination! The BEFORE was bad enough - but to actually think there's any possibility that a sitcom with 20-episodes on the national broadcaster wouldn't be notable, suggests that the editor shouldn't be working in this area. Without even looking beyond Proquest (surely there's also significant coverage in newspapers.com) some excellent detailed in-depth articles on the English version are Toronto Star November 2006 (ProQuest 439101395), Montreal Gazette March 2006(ProQuest 434311426), Winnipeg Free Press October 2006(ProQuest 2545503606), Globe and Mail June 2006(ProQuest 383533226), National Post October 2006 ProQuest 330544040 and Canadian Business (ProQuest 221361587). Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 23 January 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! 01:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory (band)[edit]

Purgatory (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obviously, a little-known metal band. I haven't found any reliable source for them. I think it doesn't work WP:BAND. Crystallizedh, 22:49 — Preceding undated comment added 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Global Pop, Local Language, p. 56: "Indonesian underground bands usually choose English monikers that stylistically resemble those of Western groups; examples include Burger Kill, Vindictive Emperor, [...] and Purgatory."
  • Routledge Handbook of Islam in the West, p. 443: "Once again, Muslim metal bands seem to be more popular in Muslim-majority countries than in the diaspora. For example, Indonesia has the Islamic metal band Purgatory, which combines classic trash with devotion to Allah and stated aversion to Western decadence – despite the Western clothing and appearance of band members."
  • The Bloomsbury Handbook of Rock Music Research, p. 478: "Spearheaded by metal groups Tengkorak and Purgatory, the One-Fingered Metal (Metal Satu Jari) movement, combining Islamic piety with metallic riffs, peaked around 2011 and subsequently declined."
  • Discus: Anomali Dunia Rock Indonesia, pp. 94–98 (in Indonesian), recounts how Sony Music Entertainment Indonesia and progressive rock enthusiasts under the banner of the Indonesia Progressive Society (IPS) collaborated to record and publish albums by four groups, one of them Purgatory.
Thanks for respecting my vote and I will do the same for you. Alas, I must point out WP:SIGCOV, which requires not just reliable sources, but reliable sources that provide information that can be developed into an encyclopedic article. Those books are good finds but I don't think they get beyond the "listing" effect from my vote above. Purgatory is again mentioned (your term) as an early Indonesian metal band, with no more meat to chew on, as it were. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It appears that sources don't add up to GNG but I'd like to hear from more editors working in the music area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had more luck searching for sources on Google Scholar. There appear to be more in-depth analyses of the band, the broader metal scene, and their music there.
I also count at least a dozen theses from the past ten years covering the band and the religious nature of their music. Examples include [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Not all of these could used to source an article per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but perhaps the band isn't as forgotten as we think. WP:WORLDVIEW might also be obscuring some sources, given that this is an "underground" band from the non-English-speaking global south. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 16:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above mentioned sources we appear to have enough book coverage and multiple academic theses to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck Riders[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Trainwreck Riders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A band with no indication of encyclopedic notability. A single instance of in-depth coverage in a reliable source, which happens to be the local newspaper. Tagged as needing additional citations for verification a decade ago; those have not been forthcoming, as they do not appear to exist. Also previously deleted at AfD and thereafter recreated. BD2412 T 05:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep In addition to the SFGate interview, I found the following:
Perry, Jonathan (2006-09-26). "Trainwreck Riders Enjoying Life on the Road". Boston Globe. pp. D15. Retrieved 2023-01-07.
"Trainwreck Riders: Lonely Road Revival". Maverick: 69. 2008-01-01. (full length review)
Lee, Stewart (2006-10-29). "Trainwreck Riders; Pop, rock, jazz". Sunday Times. p. 37. (capsule review)
Just enough to scrape by on WP:BAND #1. Jfire (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Are these new sources of a quality that would allow this article to meet GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

139.190.236.109 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 21 January 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. While on a pure nose count one might consider a "no consensus", the analysis of source depth and reliability (or the lack thereof) was not substantially refuted by individuals arguing to keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moj (app)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Moj (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the news has the same dates, PR Based material based on the company launch, and India bans TikTok events. Lordofhunter (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: After my WP:BEFORE. I found significant coverage passing WP:GNG. The previous nomination was Keep. Tictictoc (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share those coverages here? I have seen the old Nom, and I have also seen the exact dates of them. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While you're right that a decent portion of the sources are from the app's release date, there is coverage independent of that (ie. [16], [17], [18]) TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response Techcrunch source is not reliable as per WP:RS, This ET News is published by PR wired group IANS, and not even in-depth related to Moj, Last source is again based on PR Material, please read the news, whole news is said by Ankush Sachdeva, CEO of Moj. There is no analysis. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes notability criteria WP:GNG. There is significant coverage on Moj app in Wikipedia reliable sources. Himalayan7914 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response For companies we have WP:ORG, I appreciate if you can sources for it. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found some independent coverage - [19] [20] [21] [22] Also, some interviews - [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Himalayan7914 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response You are again sharing the same kind of sources. The same news are related to Tiktok Ban is published on multiple platforms. It is not indepth related to Moj. We are looking for independent news related to the Company, not the interview of the spokesperson. Lordofhunter (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When Moj app was launched in India it was considered as a replacement to Tiktok which got banned. This is the reason why most of the medias refer to Tiktok when they are covering Moj app. Also, most of the coverage I shared above is from last 6 months i.e. 2022. Tiktok was banned in July 2019. You will find lot coverage which has a mention of Tiktok ban but they are not necessarily from the launch time. Also, lot of sources from the article are also from 2022 and not from it's launch time. Himalayan7914 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Let me share you the review in detail of 4 sources shared by you, other than interview.
  • Bloomberg, NDTV is the exact same news published on 2 platforms at the same time, Do you think it is independent? Infact, It is also not an indepth coverage of Moj, there is no analyse of any journalist related to Moj. Infact the topic is something else here.
  • Your 3rd ET News is also about the same topic, not indepth about Moj.
  • FinancialExpress source is about "How 5g will change our life" How is it indepth about Moj?
Notability is too far for Moj to be consider. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No comprehensive independent coverage. What there is seems to be the result of company press releases with no actual analysis. BruceThomson (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all I find are funding announcements and PR stuff, or things on clickbait sites. And what's explained above is pretty much all there is to say. Nothing notable here.Oaktree b (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Routine funding announcements and press releases do not contribute to notability. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT in this regard. - Aoidh (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article currently lists significant sources from the Bloomberg, Economic Times, the Financial Express and the Indian Express, which is exceptional for an app. Plus the app is one of the most downloaded apps in India and has user base of 300mn. Which is more than the combined population of Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain. Debating over its notability is ridiculous.Devenjosh (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC) — Devenjosh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The Bloomberg piece is an interview, Economic Times is very case-by-case in terms of reliability and the others you listed are examples of churnalism. 300m is a WP:BIGNUMBER but ultimately it's the quality of sources that matters, not the self-reported number of users. In this case, the quality of sources doesn't support an article for this subject at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let the Admin decide if it is ridiculous or not. Just having a PR in a reliable media site, doesn't mean they are notable. None of them is independent or significant and Userbase is not a notability criterion. Please share top 3 sources which makes it notable. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I find Aoidh's analysis of the sources at 16:41, 16 January 2023 to be the most persuasive and unrefuted. Does not meet the threshold of significant coverage that we set. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Unfortunately this has been open for over three weeks now and no consensus has materialised with regards to whether or not these lists should exist as standalone articles. Some editorial solutions have been proposed in the discussion, so let's see how those play out for the time being. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of county routes in Nassau County, New York (C01–C25)[edit]

List of county routes in Nassau County, New York (C01–C25) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also:

List of county routes in Nassau County, New York (E51–E68) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Already covered in a table at List of county routes in Nassau County, New York. While these types of lists are permitted for county routes not notable enough for their own article, I doubt that much can be said for most of these routes, over half of which are less than 1 mile long. Rschen7754 02:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. Rschen7754 02:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the rationale presented by Rschen7754. Dough4872 02:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article's author has done a good job with the way the article is laid out. Presentation and readability are much improved over the tabular format in List of county routes in Nassau County, New York, which I find difficult to engage with. In my view, it's that article which should be reduced, by removing the tables for the routes covered here and retaining the links to these two articles. Rupples (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The table in the main article adequately presents the information without the need for individual sections and infoboxes. Reywas92Talk 16:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is very little to say about these alphanumeric routes that would surpass the utility of a table. VC 18:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The articles both follow the guidelines of WP:USROADS for county roads. These are typical for county routes anywhere in the United States – regardless of the size of a road – and are needed since the table data in one main article show very limited information and are highly confusing and inefficient – thus the reason why county route guidelines call for articles like these. Regardless of size, they are part of a highway network. Furthermore, I only published these articles within the past week or two, and they are in the very early stages; these are time-consuming to make. Additionally, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. There is plenty of information out there for many of the roads and their histories – regardless of their lengths. Bearing all of this in mind, I see no reason why the articles should be deleted, and frankly see a clear need for them. AITFFan1 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:USRD/RCS and WP:USRD/NT allow this sort of article, but do not mandate that this be done. If you have sources for the history, I would be more inclined to keep, but much of the history is based on a WP:SPS. --Rschen7754 20:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I can absolutely add some more sources which are non-SPS. I will add them over the next few days.
      AITFFan1 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have started adding non-SPS sources for the history of some roads – and I have also added historic information for some roads which did not yet have a section or have expanded upon the existing information. With all that said, I do believe that it is important for the articles to be retained; they are allowed by multiple guidelines, Wikipedia is not paper, and the list articles are highly needed, in my opinion, to better explain what is presented in the main article (which is confusing to interpret and understand and lacks adequate and important route details for each road). AITFFan1 (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am open to this being userfied in case you want to continue working on this, but - the sources added mostly focus on the what-ifs of specific roads that never happened. I was hoping for more about constructing the road, or effects the road has had on society, or major projects that did go through. --Rschen7754 01:11, 14 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! 02:47, 14 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! 03:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. These detailed lists could be a blessing, if we can also reduce the volume of the notes in List of county routes in Nassau County, New York or just maybe even totally eradicate the notes in the main. Right now, I do not see the positive impacts in the main. Rschen7754 and AITFFan1, would this be a setup you can both live with? gidonb (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can absolutely live with that setup. AITFFan1 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is the appropriate way to go. I think my position on road notability is fairly well known (User:Rschen7754/Without apology), however even I am concerned at the level of detail that is being used for what is cumulatively 10 miles of road per list - and unsigned county roads at that. I could probably write an article cherrypicking major streets in the city that I live that looked like this, but ultimately it would not be notable. --Rschen7754 02:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Further to my comment above and the intention of the creator to improve the parent articles when such detailed lists are created. Releasing the main lists from minute detail and having these concentrate on the bigger picture would be a MAJOR BENEFIT of the detailed lists. Precisely what sublists are intended to do! gidonb (talk) 06:01, 29 January 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 Crumble. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apple crumble[edit]

Apple crumble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I will admit up front that I don't edit food-related articles so I don't really know what sourcing should look like in these. I assume history articles/books would be preferable, and I didn't see any of those. The best I see is these two recipes from the New York Times and the Food Network. Neither discuss history at all but I would think they'd be the most reliable you'd get, so maybe they're good for something. Otherwise I don't see what would make this keepable unless there are some other rules in an SNG that I'm unaware of. QuietHere (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Crumble. The origins of the fruit dish in WW2 rationing can no doubt be reliably sourced, if not a. dish with apples specifically. Jfire (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Crumble as above. The general article is perfectly valid, but we don't need an article on each individual variety (even though apple crumble is by far the best-known and a very common British dish). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. I was surprised that I couldn't find any reliable sources to support an standalone article - given that it is a popular British dessert - but I couldn't. The best I could find were [28], [29] (both by the same author), [30] (mainly just a list of recipes), and [31] (which is pretty brief). There's something here, but I'm not convinced that there's enough to justify having an article on both crumble and apple crumble without those two largely duplicating each other. WJ94 (talk) 11:29, 24 January 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! 05:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sidi Mohamed Maroufel[edit]

Sidi Mohamed Maroufel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts on the suggested ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as there isn't a suitable redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG failure. Redirecting is not appropriate as the subject is not mentioned at the suggested target and because he was active for multiple seasons and for multiple clubs so it's not a case where there is one obvious target. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; no WP:SIGCOV available. Jogurney (talk) 19:28, 26 January 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! 03:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osnat Lubrani[edit]

Osnat Lubrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No independent coverage, not notable person. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Israel. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It seems unlikely that WP: BEFORE was done as I find tons of independent RS over time in various languages, sufficient to establish notability.[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44]. Definitely sufficient sources to support WP:Basic and she isn't a politician. She is a humanitarian and human rights official, not an elected post. SusunW (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right she is not a politician. I however found those pieces as well and did conduct my BEFORE, but didn't find these relevant. Here is my synopsis of each source you linked.
    • [1] is an Op-Ed from Jpost, says more about her father (Israel Ambassador to Iran) than about her
    • [2] Is promotional tone and very brief, but could be used as a source
    • [3] Is a government website, cannot be used for establishing notability
    • [4] Kyiv Post interview, again not independent nor for establishing notability
    • [5] A Slovakian glossary by NGO/UNIFEM (Lubrani's org). Not independent
    • [6] OHCHR UN agency not independent
    • [7] DailyPost Vanutia: Passing mention, but is independent
    • [8] Page 7,10 Pacific Business Partners passing mention. Is independent
    • [9] Not about Lubrani, but a tropical storm.
    • [10] Press release, cannot be used to establish notability
    • [11] Fiji Sun interview... not independent and promo
    • [12] Island Sun, passing mention
    • [13] Jewish Times piece about Osna. Independent
    All in all there's 3 independent articles from non major newspapers, borderline BASIC. I will let a closer determine.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to let the closer decide and honestly I have no issues either way. I rarely work on living people and even rarer come to AfD. What made me even look was your statement that there was no independent coverage and that you looked at her as a politician, which you have now concurred she is not. There is also independent coverage. Significant coverage can be a combination of multiple sources and the subject does not have to be the main topic of a source. Interviews can be used to fill in biographical details. There's enough here to prove her career trajectory and establish that she has been a regional coordinator for the UN (not a routine post that just anyone is given) in projects dealing humanitarian aid and worked in country development in Africa, the Pacific and now Europe. (By the way, in the Pacific region (also in the Caribbean), the various island newspapers are nationwide, and while not major in the same sense that UK/US newspapers are, they are the main source of news there.) SusunW (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her father Uri Lubrani as it already mentions her? Given what has been happening I Ukraine, sje has an arguably important role in the day to day life of many residents and should ne mentioned somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMensa (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Nominated as failing WP:POLITICIAN, however, she is not a politician. SusunW established Lubrani's notability with 13 sources of which nominator agrees that 3 are independent articles in a very critical review of these sources. There's no case then for deleting. I often see this suggestion, but just redirecting all women's biographies to their husband/relative, who happens to be better known, does not convey us making even a minimal effort for gender equality on WP. If a biography passes the bar it should be kept regardless of gender. gidonb (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 7 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! 02:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok, weak keep. The sources are so-so, but gender equality is important here. It's not a slam dunk but just over the bar. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 21 January 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. Legoktm (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angker Batu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Angker Batu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film has been tagged for notability since July 2021. Two AfDs have resulted in no consensus.

Can we come to a consensus this time and either delete the page, or prove it is notable enough to have an entry and have the notability tag removed? DonaldD23 talk to me 02:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't appear to have a notable cast and the sources needed for an article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Weak keep' as reviews were identified at the previous afds: Kapan Lagi, Detik, Curcol and John Tirayoh. Its a weak keep as I am not familiar with those websites, it would be helpful to have some analysis from Indonesian editors, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Changing to full Keep in view of Arsonal's comments below, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is named incorrectly and should be moved to Angkerbatu. This film is notable as the second horror film by director Jose Poernomo [id], whose first film, Jelangkung (2001), was credited with reinvigorating the Indonesian horror genre. (This event is well-documented in Indonesian Cinema after the New Order: Going Mainstream, p. 93: "Jelangkung was not only a popular sensation, which set off an Indonesian horror revival, it also laid the groundwork for the new codes and conventions of the contemporary Indonesian genre." Other scholarly works and news sources also cover its impact.) However, unlike its predecessor, Angkerbatu was widely panned by critics and did not live up to the expectations set by Jelangkung. This is reflected in the review pointed out by Atlantic306 published in detik.com. (That site and KapanLagi are well-established online news platforms in Indonesia, whereas Curcol—the website of an individual named Cosa Aranda—and John Tirayoh are non-professional reviewers.) In a compilation published by Tempo on the Development of Contemporary Horror Films (in Indonesian), film critic Ekky Imanjaya notes that Angkerbatu was one of a "deluge" of horror films released in 2007. ("Film Indonesia bergenre horor benar-benar membanjiri bioskop Indonesia.") He notes that one redeeming quality of Angkerbatu was bringing back a horror film comic relief character named Bokir (formerly portrayed by the actor of the same name), which had been absent from Indonesian films since 2000. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:13, 20 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! 02:56, 21 January 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. The "keeps" are largely based on the slew of references provided early on in the discussion; however, nobody arguing to keep has presented evidence here as to how these sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. The argument that interviews are admissible is an oversimplification; interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content; that has not been demonstrated here. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belkacem Niati[edit]

Belkacem Niati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, among many many more French sources. There are definitely Arabic sources as well. Clearly significant figure in local Algerian football with over 100+ appeanrces in the fully pro Algerian top flight as well as a 2017-18 Algerian Cup winner. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, can you improve the article in this case? Currently it seems his achievement is 24 apps is Ligue2. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to soccerway.com, Niati played for CR Belouizdad during the 2016–17 season, but he did not appear for the club in any cup matches for which they have records (round of 16 or later), so it's hardly accurate to say he was a cup winner (even accounting for the fact you cited the wrong season). Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 20:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. The refbombing above has no significant coverage of Niati. Dougal18 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources by Das osmnezz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can we please ban Dasosmnezz from refbombing AfDs? These source lists he produces are always majority composed of exactly the types of sources he personally has seen rejected in dozens of footballer AfDs (Q&A interviews, routine transactional announcements, non-independent profiles), so even if on rare occasions there is a piece of SIRS SIGCOV, other editors are still forced to wade through and analyze a bunch of junk at every single AfD.
3, competition.dz is a Q&A interview: Red XN. 4, lexpressiondz.com is another Q&A interview: Red XN. 5, lebuteur.com via djazairess.com is a routine press release with no SIGCOV: Red XN. 6, elwatan.com is a handful of sentences reporting contract negotiations: Red XN. 7, lebuteur.com is details on an earlier transfer dispute that offer slightly more coverage but are more about administrative issues than Niati himself: Red XN. 8, dknews-dz.com is a routine transactional announcement: Red XN. 9, depechedekabylie.com has almost zero independent info on Niati as it is about the coach/management's response to player strikes in general: Red XN. 10 is another Q&A from the same outlet as 3: Red XN. 11 is a Q&A from the same outlet as 9: Red XN. 12 is a reprint of a very brief Q&A from outlet #7 hosted by outlet #5: Red XN. 11 is a post-game Q&A by outlet #7: Red XN. 12 from outlet #3 is a bare quote by Niati followed by general updates on JSMB that do not contain SIGCOV of Niati: Red XN. 14 is another Q&A from outlet #11: Red XN. 15, presse-algerie.net is entirely quotes from Niati: Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Q&A interviews are admissible for GNG AFAIK.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By "Q&A interviews" I am referring to those that provide little to no independent commentary by the interviewer. These absolutely do not contribute to GNG as they are primary and violate OR. All of Niati's interviews are of the useless Q&A format and so cannot count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they don't count for GNG, they can be used to hang additional facts on the main article tree, but they don't support the tree themselves. Oaktree b (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG per above refs.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Although Niati had a pretty full career playing football in the Algerian top division, I can't see any coverage that rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV. Most third party coverage focuses on two contract disputes (in 2015 and 2019) rather than detailing his career or achievements (This Algerian football magazine dedicates a single paragraph to the 2015 transfer dispute). There is plenty of superficial coverage (noted above) that doesn't discuss his career but rather focuses on a single upcoming or completed match or team training. None of this suggests WP:GNG could be met. If someone can find older (pre-2015) editions of Journal Maracana online, perhaps we would find more in depth coverage of his career there, but for now it's just wishful thinking. Jogurney (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, issuu.com has a search function and it's fairly easy to find older editions of Journal Maracana there. The coverage is generally routine from what I found (This post-match interview is representative). I'm not finding anything to change my mind. Jogurney (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep above refs are sufficient to pass GNG. I disagree with some of JoelleJay's assessment, particularly dismissing sources that include Q&A interviews along with some additional content. Frank Anchor 20:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frank Anchor, what "additional content"? None of those sources contain sufficient independent, secondary commentary by the interviewers to count towards even BASIC, and certainly none of them meet NSPORT's strict requirements for a full GNG source, which has still not been identified:
    3: JSMB midfielder Belkacem Niati has returned to his old team, after successfully achieving the goal of joining CABBA. Being among the last elements to have joined the workforce ... Docked during the resumption session on Wednesday afternoon, the middle of the JSMB returned to the Hammam Bourguiba course and the preparation that the players have made so far.
    4: The master of the band in Bouakkez, Belkacem Nitai, who has already won this cup with the CRB...
    10: Niati Belkacem, with his experience, goes in this direction by declaring that we will have to be patient and wait a few games, before being able to judge the team.
    11: The CABBA defector, Belkacem Niati, had a first-class game against the RCK. Moreover, he was behind the penalty obtained in the last minutes of the match, giving the victory for the JSMB.
    12: Against the USMBA, Belkacim Niati scored his eighth goal of the season, making him his team's best scorer this season.
    13: The midfielder of JSM Béjaïa, Belkacem Niati, was angry at the end of the match which opposed his team to CR Belouizdad, yesterday, after the defeat (2-0) but especially the goal disallowed by the referee who played in favor of the Algiers. (This is really primary/non-indy as it is stating Niati's feelings rather than offering the author's analysis; at any rate, it's not encyclopedic content anyway.)
    14: The technical staff of the JSMB will certainly rely on key elements such as midfielder Belkacem Niati to win the big derby the day after tomorrow against the MOB. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My interpretation is that relevant content summarizing the interviews, however brief, is enough to get this particular topic past GNG. Especially when there are so many sources covering different aspects of the subject in this way. Frank Anchor 13:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frank Anchor, as an interviewee's responses are indisputably primary and non-independent, they cannot contribute to notability, and per WP:PRIMARY only very basic info from them is permitted in a wikipedia article. This is outlined further in WP:OR, which includes interviews among several examples of primary documents. This has been affirmed in numerous biography AfDs:
    This close statement: The result was delete. Interviews are primary sources so the delete argument is the policy based one.
    AfD nominations by admins
    here: This article on a tattoo artist is sourced mainly from interviews. Being primary sources, they don't help us establish his notability. (A !voter further states The interview in the magazine - can't assess it.... So even if the [interview] contains a lot of independent information (doubt it plus a niche source), Rojas would not pass the WP:GNG based on what I found.)
    here: WP:BLP of a radio personality and podcaster, referenced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and Q&A interviews that cannot support notability
    and here: There are interviews, and a number of performance listings but nothing independent
    Deletion rationales
    here: So far I am seeing numerous interviews but little in the way of WP:SECONDARY sources.... I would like to see pretty much any of the people voting Keep put forth WP:THREE best sources (that aren't interviews) to demonstrate that this article is unequivocally notable beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    source analysis here
    discussion here: The first and third links are short, primary source interviews. The second link is kind of nothing. Please have a look at secondary sources.
    here: I disagree with the statement "...sources are in depth, reliable and independent. That a quote comes from her father doesn't make the source doing the quoting "not independent" in any way". The quote comes from Reem ("according to Reem...") -- this is the definition of a non-independent source. Interviews in general are not SIGCOV sources for the purpose of establishing notability.
    here: The Ynaija interview only quotes Mr. Israel and does not add any independent research. As such it is effectively a self-published source and not verifiable.
    see also here, here, and here. JoelleJay (talk) 18:49, 21 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! 02:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are brief mentions and he had a brief, brief career. Perhaps a redirect to the club? If this was an MLB player, I'd perhaps redirect to the 2016-2017 season for that ball club, but this soccer team doesn't have such extensive season articles. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He definitely did not have a "brief, brief career", he had over 160+ appeanrces in the fully pro Algerian top flight/second tier and was a 2017-18 Algerian Cup winner (see 17). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant failure of WP:GNG and anything else related. Those "sources" are just passing references and are not WP:RS at all: I can't stop reminding you all that quality is far more important than quantity when we talk about sources. Angelo (talk) 23:10, 25 January 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! 00:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Bhandarkar[edit]

Sunny Bhandarkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is heavily reliant on REFBOMBING. A draft version of this article, titled "Sunny Bhandarkar," has already been declined. If it were not for this, the article would have been moved to draft. Akevsharma (talk) 00:54, 14 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! 02:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all are press releases, or articles about the league where he's mentioned in relation to the league. I guess a redirect to the league would be ok, but I don't think he's that well known. Oaktree b (talk) 02:58, 21 January 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. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K25NG-D[edit]

K25NG-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are many low-power TV stations in the United States that are little more than channels for rent with lower-tier national digital multicast services. This is a great example of such. Many of these lack any history or coverage, let alone significant coverage to meet the GNG. They should be redirects either to a list of stations owned by the company or a list of stations in a given state.

We have a lot of articles on stations of this type (especially LPTVs established in the last 10 years), so the eventual redirect carnage can and likely will pile up. Their programming can be verified to RabbitEars, so a listing in a state or company article can at least have a reference, but a standalone article is not justified under any circumstances. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete To be very blunt, there’s very little chance you’ll ever get any coverage from reliable sources on these stations. Not only should types of articles be put on a list, it might be a good idea to establish some sort of GNG criteria for low-power stations.
To wit, I did make something out of WOHZ-CD a few months ago even though it was literally the bare minimum of material I could possibly muster. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 03:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely any sources, fails WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We really need a cruft-free 'List of HC2 television stations' for this company's stations which just serve a small range area and have no local presence or history whatsoever, including its infamous station IDs created in PowerPoint and inserted crudely without care. As is now though, this is a station broadcasting to few (and Estrella honestly probably doesn't even know they have a station in St. Louis now), carrying programming of little interest to the community which likely doesn't even know this station exists, the same as nearby W29CI-D. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf It looks like DTV America exists, so there's a starting point. But it's probably quite out of date. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie and MrSchimpf: The table in that article needs cleanup and scoping, but you could replace the “notes” column with Facility ID, transmitter coords and the LMS links (along with a RabbitEars cite) and that should be enough to handle the vast majority of these articles. (Heck, the lone non-RabbitEars cite for WQDI-LD about the Cheddar—Dunkin’ Donuts doesn’t really belong there as it was a national promotion.) Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 16:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandboxed the table at User:Nathan_Obral/DTV_America so the info can be updated that way. :) Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you...I'll look at it and see if this will fit; the issue is this company has three-four names so we have to figure out a proper title to place it on (I'm bending more towards Innovate Corp. as it's the most current). Nate • (chatter) 21:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf The main concern I have with shoehorning it into the Innovate Corp. article is that it is set to be quite a long list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf and Sammi Brie: At this point, it **has** to be a list article. I imported this table from RabbitEars which has ALL the stations sorted out by DMA and am slowly trying to reconcile it all (Mvcg66b3r is helping out with this). I put in an intro saying "this is a list of all stations owned by Innovate under either HC2 or DTV..." that's similar to the list of stations for Gray or Nexstar or Sinclair. Chances are this table could be ... 120K bites at least. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 03:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Laurence Lindo[edit]

Henry Laurence Lindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. No indication of notability. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in "Commonwealth notebook". The Round Table. 70 (279): 336–340. 1980-07-01. doi:10.1080/00358538008453471. ISSN 0035-8533. and the other sources it cites, such as his obituary notice in The Times Jfire (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Lindo[edit]

Percy Lindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. No indication of notability. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National politician in legislative council, so passes WP:POLITICIAN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:33, 21 January 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. WP:SNOW close, per WP:NPOL, overwhelming community consensus that members of parliaments are presumed notable. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Lindo[edit]

Roy Lindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. No indication of notability. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN as national politician. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:33, 21 January 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 Lindo family. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lindo[edit]

Abraham Lindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. No indication of notability. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:08, 21 January 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! 03:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Joseph Lindo[edit]

Alexander Joseph Lindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. No indication of notability. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As member of house of assembly, passes WP:POLITICIAN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:35, 21 January 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! 03:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Abarbanel Lindo[edit]

David Abarbanel Lindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:00, 21 January 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! 03:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Stickman[edit]

Nathan Stickman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources on page include a very very primary-source interview (archive), two very brief announcements of local concerts (one and two), some non-notable awards from a local paper (here), a brief album review from the same local paper (here), and several primaries and blatantly unreliable pages (One CD Baby link would be bad enough). Found no additional coverage of the artist or his albums; would recommend deleting all of those too. One of them is already up for an AfD, but I didn't see anything for the rest either. QuietHere (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, and Arizona. QuietHere (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero hits in Gnews (like none it thinks his name is a spelling mistake, suggesting other options), regular Google goes right to the various streaming sites, then peters off. Hardly on Google at all, which is the very end of the GNG non-notability needle. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why this article is under attack now as it has been on Wiki for 15 years. This is a prominent Nashville singer-songwriter. Someone just needs to spend more time with the article. I can try and help. Colfax1 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added links to the direct articles from Nashville Scene, Daily Sun etc. Colfax1 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Colfax1 this is not an article "under attack" as you put it. This is a normal process of Wikipedia. The AfD process is all about determing whether an article should exist or not. In this case, the concern is that there isn't enough coverage in the article. Some articles simply do not prove notability of their subject. Sometimes that just means more coverage exists which would prove it, but said coverage hasn't been added yet and is needed. Other times it means the subject simply isn't notable enough to get an article and said article either gets deleted or redirected to a more notable page which discusses the subject in as much detail as is reasonable. What you need to do, seeing as you believe this artist to be prominent and the article worth saving, is find more coverage than what is on the page already that can be added which would prove your claim. The problem is that I and Oaktree have both already done so and neither of us found anything of the sort, meaning the likelihood of that coverage existing is drastically reduced. But maybe you know of sources that we don't which would have that coverage. If so, look in those places and add what you find. Who knows, maybe the material is out there and we both just didn't see it. I've seen it happen before and it wouldn't surprise me here. I have my doubts, but it's not impossible. And for what it's worth, do keep in mind that just expanding the article based on what's already in it will not save the article, nor will whatever it is you did with those links which looks like it probably just broke existing Wikilinks rather than actually solving anything.
    And for everyone else's sake, it should also be noted that I've left a warning on Colfax1's talk page about their multiple removals of the AfD template from the article. If this happens a third time, please report it. It's blatantly against the rules; the template itself says not to remove it quite clearly. QuietHere (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There have been some attempts to improve the article, but Mr. Stickman simply has simply not been noticed by the music media in a significant and reliable way. He has appeared briefly in a few semi-reliable sources, but that does not mean anything significant was said that can inform an encyclopedic article. Softball intro interviews and gig announcements don't count. He's been around for a long time and I hope he has been able to make a living with what he loves, but he doesn't qualify for an article here. Also, there are nine articles for albums that were equally unnoticed by the press, and those can be boldly redirected to Stickman's article in the event that he survives this process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: A different editor has redirected most of the albums as I suggested, with the exception of the one being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunnel Vision (Stickman album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:39, 23 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Nitesh[edit]

Kumar Nitesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced BLP. Does not meet GNG or NBIO.  // Timothy :: talk  01:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Haryana. AllyD (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't understand nominator's rationale. Nitesh is a multiple para world championship medalist, easily meeting WP:GNG. He has a strong coverage in Hindi articles as well. Search "कुमार नितेश". Article needs to be tagged for improvement in place of having afd discussion. zoglophie 15:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link some of these SIGCOV sources please? JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't found SIGCOV in any of those, except for some match coverage. However even Olympics covered him in a bwf sanctioned international tournament. A source ([1]) in the current version certainly has a lot of information about the athlete in detail. Besides, a ranking of 2, 3 in two different categories is more than being just notable, ofcourse. zoglophie 05:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep World Championships medalist in a Paralympic sport. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It would be useful to include a statement regarding Nitesh's multiple para world championship medals in the article Almeida Fernando (talk) 05:45, 28 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of India (Marxist) campaign for the next Indian general election[edit]

Communist Party of India (Marxist) campaign for the next Indian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article and sources do not meet GNG and if they did the article would still need WP:TNT to fix and create a proper article. All of the material in the article is either improperly sourced or off topic and the text itself would require complete rewriting.  // Timothy :: talk  01:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Every campaign will draw media attention, and it's unclear why this one is notable in that sense. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we started creating Articles for Campaigning then there would be thousands of articles in this type of subjects only. Dawkin Verbier is right. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNC Cinadon36 09:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : CPIM is a national party, so it's campaigning is worth notable. Campaigning of Indian Congress Page is also created by other editor with the information about formation of their committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XYZ 250706 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cinadon36@Dawkin Verbier@Misterrrrr CPIM is a national party, so it's campaigning is worth notable. It is not only in Kerala, I have added campaign in Bihar also. Campaigning of Indian Congress Page is also created by other editor with the information about formation of their committee. If campaigning of one national party like CPIM is deleted, then Indian National Congress campaign for the next Indian general election should also be deleted as neutral opinion. Otherwise both should be kept. XYZ 250706 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a national party, CPIM has MLA representation in 8 states and considerable presence in West Bengal, Telangana, Himachal Pradesh. XYZ 250706 (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cinadon36@Dawkin Verbier@Misterrrrr@TimothyBlue Do not think that the article has almost been completed. It is now just started. More information will be added when news will come. XYZ 250706 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear @XYZ 250706, I am not sure what is the meaning of "worth notable" is. In any case, WP's rules do not pay attention to "worth noticing" but to "established notability" (or "expected notability" in same rare cases, ie a war, a coup etc). Also, WP NPOV is not about deleting articles of the same category. If a non-notable article has not been deleted, the argument for other not-notable articles not to be deleted is poor. (Oh! look, we have done a mistake in that article, so lets replicate that mistake). Anyway, you can nominate any article you wish for deletion. Cinadon36 06:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read and understand Wikipedia:GNG and then argue. Anyone can nominate any article up for deletion, you can too. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cinadon36@Dawkin Verbier@Misterrrrr I think it meets WP:GNG as this article has no original research, has citations from reliable sources and will have more significant coverage till the eve of election (when more news will come, I have already added information of campaign in two states, as per available information it has significant coverage). I think the article should be improved more without deletion. Can it be taken to draft till eve of election? XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 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. ^ "Nitesh Kumar: The para shuttler from IIT chasing big dreams". 25 April 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_21&oldid=1136251244"