Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 30	February 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2012 NBA Summer League

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

The NBA Summer League is an exhibition held annually. Wikipedia is not a news source and this article is just a collection of game scores and player statistics. User:Namiba 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Florida, and Nevada. User:Namiba 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are multiple articles on NBA summer league seasons, so maybe this should be a bundled nomination. I don't think one NBA summer league season is more notable than another. My general feeling is that there always is some reporting out there on these events, and that any discussion about their notability will depend on how people interpret WP:ROUTINE. Zagalejo (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nom doesn't say that sources don't exist for this ~2 week event, and WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG, just needs some TLC. ProQuest turns up many articles such as these from La Prensa, Journal and Courier in Indiana, and Boston Globe. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Nomination doesn't say sources don't exist, and instead seems to go against WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Other sources covering that year's summer league: Las Vegas Review Journal, NBC Sports—Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Cielquiparle found three reliable sources with a click. I don't normally comment or !vote on sport stuff, but this is an easy one. Bearian (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG with WP:RS Bruxton (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Buis

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

Creator went on to publish article despite it being repeatedly declined while still a draft. Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG T v x1 19:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. T v x1 19:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree with nomination, not enough independent coverage. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that we do not have a rule against sources in Dutch. See below! gidonb (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in motor press listed in the article is just the beginning. A Google search suggests that there is much more. Local press – we have no rule against that – has him covered. This is a LIST of articles in the local press. Regional press also has him covered. This is a LIST of articles in the regional press. National press: I found just one article in the Algemeen Dagblad (one of the two Dutch most-read newspapers) clearly about him, it's in the references, and it is behind a paywall. With or without it, the sourcing per WP:NEXIST is pretty darn good! My only hesitation against keep is that I see on the talk page of nom a WP:BLUDGEONING warning. Please don't do that under here! gidonb (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t worry. As I already pointed out to those people, those accusations were false. I just don’t that. T v x1 17:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tvxl, good to hear and see! gidonb (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another LIST of articles in the regional press Note: the list is more than one page long! gidonb (talk) 18:18, 25 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!} 22:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG is met with coverage here in Motorcycle Sports as well as racesport.nl (already in article) and other Dutch sources posted above. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 01:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The provided sources establish notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Gidonb. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A slight consensus that the sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Collins

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

Article is very short; has no citations apart from two links, one of which does not appear to have any information about the subject. (Note: I am quite new to nominating pages for deletion so I apologise if I have done this the wrong way). Blanchey (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest you read WP:BEFORE as articles are not typically deleted based on how many references are in the article but how many references on the subject might exist. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlazeWolf Thanks, that’s good to know. I’ll have a read. Blanchey (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable independent sources devoting significant coverage of this person can be found. Currently, this is an unreferenced biography of a living person, which is a policy violation. The external links are not independent and are of negligible value. Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: The article is no longer an unsourced BLP (though I agree with you on non-notability). VickKiang (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a WP:BLP with no inline citations, with the current external links being non-independent. My WP:BEFORE search could not find reliable, independent, and non-trivial sources demonstrating a passing of WP:NBASIC or other NBIO criteria. VickKiang (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC) I stand by my vote. (Note: I have also altered my comment's format) I am still at delete despite the improvements one week ago. This new reference is a short one sentence mention, this reference appears to be a short routine announcement that mentions Martin three times, once while listing current reporters, and then in a short paragraph. The reference from The Guardian, while reliable, mentions Martin once, TV and radio presenter Paul Coia is to replace Martin Collins as the drivetime host of London's Smooth Radio. I do not believe these sources meet non-triviality per WP:NBASIC or other NBIO criteria referred below (presumably also including WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO), but this is of course my opinion. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC); edited 04:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some independent references and have updated it. Therefore, there is now no reason to delete it.Rillington (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Cullen328 and VickKiang. Non-notable radio personality, one among many thousands on the roughly 43,973 radio stations. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Martin has worked at a national radio station and currently works at what is effectively a national station. This makes him notable. Rillington (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:BIO with improvements done by Rillington. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 00:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand by my recommendation to delete. There is a complete lack of significant coverage of Collins in the three references now in the article, and the third reference lacks independence. Passing mentions do not make a person notable. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 31 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!} 22:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO per WP:HEY. SBKSPP (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Cullen328. The three references make only passing references to the subject. People here have searched for actual significant references, but they have not found any. Not even close to meeting WP:HEY. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Divisional Public Schools and Colleges. Settling on a Redirect as an ATD. I hope those advocating Delete or Keep do not object. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quaid-e-Azam Divisional Public School and College

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

Non-notable school without any significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A redirect to main system is possible Divisional Public Schools and Colleges. BookishReader (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. Unless someone can find coverage in Urdu, there is none in English. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Divisional Public Schools and Colleges, as subject doesn't meet itself WP:GNG. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Not opposed to Redirect as ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well written and a variety of sources show notability and verifiability. Gumlau (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gumlau, well written and a variety of sources isn't the criteria to have an article on Wikipedia. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, fails WP:SIGCOV. Few mentions (nothing else). 206.84.190.55 (talk) 15:54, 31 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!} 22:56, 31 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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus that an article on this subject should not exist, whether by deletion or redirect, so I am making a WP:BOLD decision with respect to a redirect target. BD2412 T 04:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orgasmatron (massage device)

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

Seems to not be notable and is essentially a product ad. Rp2006 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm seeing more than enough in-depth coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 10 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!} 21:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wire head massager. Significant coverage of the latter, but sources for the former are a bit iffy. Found a WaPo source on a competitor here. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wire head massager per Dawkin Verbier. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't redirect an article to a blank page. We redirect an article page to another article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found enough coverage, even the WaPo post above of a competitor mentions it. I also have one of these, didn’t know this was its name! Equine-man (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:16, 24 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!} 22:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although a mention could be made at Massage#Massage_tools. This device has a general name of "scalp massager". I suspect that "orgasmatron" is a brand name, and seems to be not known beyond the one article here. Even check amazon.au, these devices are known as scalp massagers. Lamona (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, this is a brand name. Not only does this thing lack significant coverage, there is even another, completely different massage device with a different purpose which is also named Orgasmatron.[1] BTW there is a disambiguation page at Orgasmatron, and if this article is deleted, the link at the DAB page should be removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Head massage redirects to the poorly-referenced Champissage, which is a very particular regionalized form of head massage, I would merge the nominated article with Champissage under the title of Head massage and call it a stub on the larger (and clearly notable) topic. BD2412 T 03:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- On further reflection, I'm just going to do this and call this closed. BD2412 T 03:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara De Angelis

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

This author does not appear to be notable. they've published some books but that's it Ew3234 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Psychology, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP conforms to WP:AUTHOR. Added reference to confirm books published on NY Times best-seller list.It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 13:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to meeting WP:AUTHOR, she also meets WP:GNG. I have added one extended article from the Los Angeles Times on her, and multiple reviews of her books. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:AUTHOR/WP:BASIC for her collective body of work with multiple reviews, plus in-depth coverage about her in e.g. the LAT, and some biographical coverage in the NY Daily News. She also seems to be widely-quoted in various publications for e.g. 'kindness' and 'love' quotes, ideas for wedding speeches, etc. Beccaynr (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is more than enough reliably-sourced significant coverage here to pass WP:AUTHOR (and GNG as well). A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources have been found and added, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Unacob FC de Parakou

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

Unsourced article. No significant coverage of the subject was found, and the only source provided in the Portuguese version of the article was a dead link. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Africa. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete I found this that talks about the club president and the club, but I can't find anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.D. Paladín

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

Unsourced for over a decade. I did not find any significant coverage of the subject, probably fails WP:GNG Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ecuador. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced stub about a local club. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On Wikipedia, deletion discussions are determined by a rough consensus of the editors who participate in a discussion and here the clear consensus is to Delete this article. Discussion over what sources are considered reliable for establishing notability are best done at WP:RSN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Romdhane

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

Former footballer and now businessperson that does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Searches in Arabic using the name from his Instagram account ("وائل رمضان") only seem to yield sources about the Syrian actor with the same name. According to Football Database and Playmaker Stats, he never played a game and the Transfermarkt source cited only has U21 Dutch appearances. The only info I can find on him is on his own website, which is obviously not an independent source. The Nessma source cited looks like a blog and is only a basic transfer announcement, stating nothing more than the clubs involved in the transfer, that he is of Tunisian descent and that he is a left-back. Not enough to pass GNG on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Football, Tunisia, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you did not do proper research. First of all his name in Arabic is differently spelled when searching for articles, his name is Wael Romdhane (which is the Tunisian-Arabic dialect version of وائل رمضان. If you translate that you'll see that his last name in Arabic means ramadan. In Tunisia the people named after that holy month for the muslims have a different version for their name, like Ben Romdhane or Romdhani. Both options give results. For the second option; Romdhani you'll find the article of Nessma Sport TV. And in case you don't know: Nessma TV is the biggest TV channel in North-Africa and the Maghreb countries, so go ahead and look for Nessma. So, for your information this is not a nonse blog but an official TV Media announcement which you would have understand if you knew about Nessma TV. This article is important, since USBG made a transition from 2018/2019, got a new owner and signed those players from abroad for a lot of money for the Tunisian competion. That's also when they started to play a more important role in the Tunisian Ligue 1. So those signings are parte of their history and transition from lower league team to serious Tunisian Ligue 1 team. Hopefully you understand it now. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you link to some significant coverage of Romdhane? Fair enough that Nessma is a reliable source if it is indeed a massive TV channel but neither of the sources that you have used are acceptable as one is a transfer announcement and the other is Transfermarkt, which is unreliable per WP:TRANSFERMARKT. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman@Spiderone Guys I respect your opinion but I think you're underestimating TransferMarkt and the link with Football these days. These days clubs use the data of transfermarkt during their initial scouting procedures. I checked your previous discussions and I feel that your information there is outdated. Transfermarkt has become a business itself now. They have data scouts which generate and validate the information. If someone comes up with a suggestion, they have to provide the sources and the data analyst will do his due-dilligence. You can search for the processes and see how it has changed in the last couple years. Also read this (https://www.transfermarkt.com/intern/datenpflegeGuide).

Secondly, regarding the information of Nessma TV. It is a massive and huge channel known in the whole North-African and Arab world (Pretty similar to Skysports or something like that) So they made the official announcement of his transfer and also found an interview on live tv with him on their official pages. (https://www.facebook.com/sportnessma/videos/2255444554721173/) I'm wondering if SkySports makes an official announcement of a transfer and do a live interview with news articles would you still ask? Both sources TM and Nessma are reliable sources and should just accept it and not being looking for racist excuses about an arab culture. I think it's pretty clear now. No further questions asked. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Transfermarkt is not a reliable source - and transfer news is not 'significant' coverage. Giant Snowman 22:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonse, you didn't even do your research about Transfermarkt. Your information is outdated. It doesn't work like that anymore. Transfermarkt has become a businesse with data analysts who do their due-dilligence. Unfortunately you don't want to learn and develop yourself. So sad that you're so ignorant and also belittling the Arab news since you don't seem to understand it or do proper research. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC clearly states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. so, yes, Transfermarkt is excluded regardless of its reliability. The Nessma source is just a basic transfer announcement with no depth to build a biography from. Even if it were BBC or Sky Sports, it would still be unacceptable as it does not meet SPORTBASIC's requirement for multiple published secondary sources showing non-trivial coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Transfermarkt and Nessma are both reliable sources. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Reason to deletete this article: I have done my research regarding your previous discussions about Transfermarkt not being a reliable source and it's definitely lacking. WP:TRANSFERMARKT Actually it should be part of every professional's page. How can you agree on Soccerway and WorldFootballnet and other bad sources as a decent source while the biggest source for everyone in the whole Footballindustry is by far Transfermarkt. If you guys do not have the knowledge regarding that industry or did not do your research than also should not be the one to say you think the sources are not reliable. First do you research and as I found out, your latest research regarding Transfermarkt dates from 2013! It is for sure time to update. The footballindustry has exploded in the last decade and nowadays Transfermarkt plays a big role for every scout, club and professional in the industry. Most clubs their scouting systems are depending of TM also some clubs their annual financial statements are based on the MV of transfermarkt. So be careful guys, you're way behind schedule. This article and it's sources are perfectly fine you should just understand that and stop being ignorant. Same applies for the other articles of other Tunisian players who played in their competition. If you don't know the sources that's fine I am willing to explain them for you since your Arab competition and language knowledge is not as good as mine. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, WP:SPORTBASIC clearly states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. so, yes, Transfermarkt is excluded regardless of its reliability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, again you didn't even do your research. Remain ignorant and a know-it-all. You still don't add any value to the knowledge of this football industry, country, competition and football club. While as an industry expert I tried to update you guys on the newest developments. Apparently your Transfermarkt research dates from 2013. What a shame. Also don't forget to remove almost every single page of a football player with soccerway or worldfootballnet. Those websites are not used by any particular scouts, football clubs or federations for their research on Football players, while Transfermarkt is. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Footballscout2023, please stop arguing. User:Spiderone is an IMPORTANT resource for Wikipedia. His attention is needed elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb@SpideroneI am definitely not arguing. You guys just do not possess the football industry knowledge. Your discussions regarding Transfermarkt are from 2013 so you're basically a decade behind us. You accept pages of players with ironically only a soccerway or worldfootballnet as a resource but not transfermarkt which is used by the whole industry, clubs for financial and scouting purposes. Would have been better if you worked closer with transfermarkt and both had more knowledge about that.

Furthermore you were belittling and mocking their Arab TV News (It is the biggest in North-African and Maghreb, Arabic world) page as a blog and not reliable. While it's actually similar to SkySports and BBC which you guys as well accepted as a resource. You're definitely not neutral and already have a prejudice and also lack the knowledge regarding the industry. So just accept my help and be thankfull that you were taught stuff you did not know and that was not in your attention at all first. All the best. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic and disruptive now. Have you got any significant news coverage from multiple sources, excluding sports database sites, or have you not? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not off-topic. You're not making use of Transfermarkt for no good reason, your still building on the same discussions that you had about Transfermarkt in 2013. But the whole use of it, it's environment and everything around it changed in a decade obviously and you're still ignorant about it. That's why I insisted of using this source. All the other significant news articles and interviews are already previously mentioned (Nessma Sport and TV Live interview) So you should just make use of that. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain that you're just applying double standards when we're talking about Western Football Players and Non-Western Football Players and their competitions. Over here in Europe it is enough to mention SkySports,FoxSports,BBC or even Club Websites and when we are talking about Non-Western Countries all of a sudden a source similar to SkySports is not enough. Come on guys it is 2023, time to wake up now. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy my above comment verbatim. Even if it were BBC or Sky Sports, it would still be unacceptable as it does not meet SPORTBASIC's requirement for multiple published secondary sources showing non-trivial coverage. We do not need your permission to delete articles. Unless you can come up with multiple news articles dedicating significant coverage (generally, multiple paragraphs of prose text). I note that you still have not brought in any sources other than the same 2 that we started with, one being a transfer announcement and another being a stats database. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one is straightforward. At Achilles '29, he only played in U21, not on the main squad. Next, he transferred to US Ben Guerdane in the Tunisian first league and also never played in the first squad. He left after a month. gidonb (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. Get your facts straight. Newsarticles and interviews says he signed in May 2019. How can you say he left after a month? He was one of their new presidents signings from abroad with the Brazilian and Egyptian players as well. Also not true, he was on the bench for CAF Confederations Cup but didn't play due an injury. Still with the other players of USBG is a part of their transition in 2019 from being a Ligue 2 Tunisia club to playing in the CAF Confederations Cup. You should have done better research. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion regarding Transfermarkt which would be better placed at WP:RSN, not here

OK, so you lasted 3 months in Tunisia. Either way, you do not meet the threshold of notability. gidonb (talk)

@Gidonb who's 'you' mate? We're talking about this guy from US Ben Guerdane like the other players I wrote the articles for. I did proper research and found a lot information. I am am not related to this subject. So don't you dare to make those accusations. And what's the threshold of notability? Both sources cover the story perfectly. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an accusation. It's my conclusion based on creating this article on Nlwiki and arguing under your own name there, adding info. Nlwiki, not known for quality, to say the least, also deleted this. gidonb (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is clear proof of what Gidonb is saying. The person that created the Nlwiki article was called 'WaelRomdhane-Info' then decided to change their username after attention was drawn to the fact that they were self-promoting. They then argued about it here under a different name. Self-promotion is quite often the only likely reason for someone vehemently defending an article which can never be expanded beyond a 2-sentence stub and that clearly fails WP:SPORTBASIC by a country mile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not clear proof at all mate. That could be anyone using the username based on that person trying to frame it. I don't understand what they were arguing about since it is not in English. Also the sources that I used for this article now were based on the news articles regarding US Ben Guerdane as a club since I have been following them closely the last couple years so I decided that I wanted to make the articles to complete their history. It's weird that apparently someone tried to use his full name as a username and argue about it. I am from Sweden and my name is Hansson, I am specialized in the scouting of players in Western but also in Arabic countries and watched their competitions closely. For that reason this is a subject that a have much knowledge about. However I feel offended that you're trying to frame me for someone who previously tried to make an article and argued about that. I don't even understand Dutch so I find it all pretty interesting. Hope the next time you try to get your facts right before you're making such random accusations. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone the only reason for defending the article is actually that I found a lot of other articles with the worst sources ever like, Soccerway and Worldfootballnet. In comparison with those Transfermarkt is the best thing that ever happened for the football industry. I hope you guys did your research in the meantime and got a better understanding of TM in this industry. Furthermore Nessma was a good addition since you guys allowed SkySports and BBC as a source. So for me the only reason for sticking to this stub is that it is important for the history of Tunisian and arab football that we get more knowledge available about their players and history. In my opinion it seems that it would be nice to have a small overview of all the players. I started with those players from US Ben Guerdane because I watched that team closely since their transition in 2018/2019 and did some scouting as well. Hope you all have a better understanding now about it, because for me I would defend all the articles from all the players like that. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't buy into any of that. Subsequent edits were made by a Hans. This is your consistent alter ego. Another username you used at Nlwiki was PietjePreciesDerks, who argues in the same style as you do here. gidonb (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very rude and attacking approach of you. Let me tell you something son, that does not scare me. You can write down all the BS stories and try to be funny but I have no idea what you're talking about. As I said I wanted to contribute by bringing Transfermarkt to the attention since you all have been sleeping on it since 2013. After a decade you have still no idea what the importance is in the Football Industry. I think I made my point clear. Aside from that I don't know all those names you're mentioning, I don't even understand Dutch lol. And for the record I'm not arguing in a particular style I'm trying to give you guys a wake up call that your approach of working is outdated and you're just a group of friends agreeing on everything together. That's why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously. I'm very sorry for the people who are working day and night to make it a better place and I feel sad for them that because of you it will never be achieved. Next time make sure you check the IP-address to locate it. Then you would have known that I'm from Stockholm. Anyway, all the best and hopefully this will open up your closeminded thoughts... Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs to remember WP:CIVIL, and accusations of socking should be taken to WP:SPI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concern was WP:COI. gidonb (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the concern at all. The concern from beginning till now is that you guys are avoiding all the discussions about Transfermarkt. You still carry on with that outdated information about TM and you're running a decade behind. All the developments in the football industry made Transfermarkt a major source these days and you can't deny that. I felt that I had to bring this up now. Aside from that I don't care about what you @Gidonb say. Even WP know your accusations are false and dangerous. So be carefull with that next time mate. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously 2013? That was the last time you did research regarding transfermarkt... Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all incorrect. We have agreed that Transfermarkt hasn't changed. More importantly for your case, and please let it sink this time, we have pointed out to you time and again that even if we thought Transfermarkt was a wonderful source of data (we do not!), you would still be not notable. This is because Transfermarkt is a database and for the General Notability Guideline you would need significant coverage. That's not something that is to be found even in great databases. In other words, your entire argumentation (using the word loosely) is pointless. gidonb (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He is definitely non-notable as a footballer, and does not seem notable in any other terms. Angelo (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request. Can we speedy close this so we all can concentrate on topics that have some connection with notability? gidonb (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request Denied@ Can we just not do that. You're just a group of friends trying to keep everything the same as a decade ago. The same discussion about Transfermarkt in 2013 is being used as for the reason why you don't accept this source. However in the meantime everything about it changed and the whole football industry, clubs and scouts are using this for scouting and also for the annual financial statements for determining the MV. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will not be deleted. If you refuse to acknowledge the development and importance of Transfermarkt in the Football Industry, the usage and its reliability then only one thing is certain. You never want to develop yourself and your knowledge. Last updates and information from you about this subject dates from 2013! We're in 2023 Wake up! Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete I can't find anything to show notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of SIGCOV demonstrating GNG. As SpiderOne and others have said, Transfermarkt, Soccerway, Worldfootballnet, etc. are all unusable for the purposes of establishing notability, so it is 100% irrelevant whether Transfermarkt is RS. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, lacks SIGCOV, and per nom, WP:SPORTBASIC as well. Tails Wx 13:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rabii Ben Hassine

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

Article with no WP:RS moved over from draftspace prematurely. Can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Google News had no relevant Arabic hits. Best sources that I could find were FilGoal and Time Kora, both stats databases. According to the one reference this article has, Ben Hassine played 3 Tunisian games then disappeared so I'm not surprised that there's no in-depth coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will provide additional sources about him. Also for this one you probably didn't spell his name correctly in Arabic. Furthermore he is still part of the history of USBG and the tunisian ligue 1. As you could see this is also still a stub related to tunisian football page. For the time being there is no reason at all to delete this page. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used "ربيع بن حسين" from his Transfermarkt page which you used as the sole reference. Please enlighten to me as to the correct Arabic spelling of his name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Transfermarkt obviously the best source for scouting and investigating Footballplayers. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Transfermarkt is considered reliable or not is being (re-)discussed elsewhere. But Spiderone already mentioned this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wael Romdhane: WP:SPORTBASIC, one of the criteria for establishing notability of a sportsperson, states: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." So regardless of Transfermarkt's reliability, its stats cannot be used to claim to notability of a footballer. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks WP:SIGCOV, regardless of Transfermarkt or not. Angelo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete No significant coverage that I can find. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally random player. Was created as an afterthought by a buddy on his team after creating an article about himself. Fails the WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry but the consensus is to Delete this article. Let me know if you would like to work on it in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyceum of Alabang

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lyceum of Alabang

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

Fails notability criteria for schools (WP:NSCHOOL). The most coverage one can find is two news articles that briefly mention it as the school of Miss Universe winner Celeste Cortesi (WP:INHERITORG - an organization does not "inherit" notability from its member). Nintendo2000 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines, Schools, and Education. Nintendo2000 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get the point of deletion if it is an existing school. I can detest I’m currently a student. Wikinerd881 (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses a notability test to determine whether an organization, such as a school, warrants its own article:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. [...] The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

Nintendo2000 (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided more sources that can attest it’s a existing educational institution such as the link here found in google books that show it’s a university https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=I2RBAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22Lyceum%20of%20Alabang%22%20-wikipedia&source=gbs_book_other_versions Wikinerd881 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't whether or not it exists, it's whether or not it's notable enough. Organizations, including schools, must pass Wikipedia's notability criteria to merit an article. Refer to my previous comment and Wikipedia's article on its notability guidelines. Also please use the [reply] button in the future so I won't have to manually format and sign your replies. Nintendo2000 (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then how will this notability test go about and isn’t it being a school for 19 years notable enough and I made this page last June 2022 only now I encounter such problem. No offense Wikinerd881 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Age doesn't imply notability. It must be covered in-depth by reliable and independent sources. I've cited Wikipedia's notability guidelines multiple times, please read them. Nintendo2000 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you need that I could provide so it won’t be deleted?? Wikinerd881 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn’t create the page necessarily because of Celeste Cortesi Wikinerd881 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm confirming nominator's google search findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be deleting the page even I have provided information that is suitable enough for it to be maintained Wikinerd881 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Also why just now you decide to do this to my page? Wikinerd881 (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

There are an average of 559 new articles every day. It takes time to review all of them. Nintendo2000 (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)

Please don’t delete my page for Lyceum of Alabang I exerted effort in it and I hope with your kind hearts that you would not. Thank you Wikinerd881 (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
You don't WP:OWN this page. WP:EFFORT isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also wouldn’t any college wiki page merit the same level as like other notable colleges like University of the Philippines or Ateneo Wikinerd881 (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

No, not all colleges pass the notability test. Nintendo2000 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the best solution for this wikipedia page not to be deleted? Hoping for a good response Wikinerd881 (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to demonstrate notability through reliable and independent sources. This is Wikipedia policy — the answer won't change no matter how many times you ask. Nintendo2000 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t the sources indicated in the references page enough already there is a google books link proving that the said college is a recognized institution as well as the actual history of the college from the school website itself. Wikinerd881 (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

The Google Books link you have is a directory that only briefly mentions each school. Coverage needs to be in-depth to establish notability. Nintendo2000 (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the strongest link or source you want me to provide? That can show “notability” of the school. Wikinerd881 (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL, most of the coverage is about a Miss Universe Philippines who attended the school, rather than about the school itself. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first, I thought this was related to the Lyceum (I would have voted 'Merge'), but I couldn't find any relationship to it. So I'm more inclined to vote for a delete, for the same reason as the others. --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda wonder why would it be deleted but the school has a known background it is existing like schools of Southville and the like. It has a website I don’t get why coverage of the school and its notability is what determines if it deserves a Wikipedia page. I hope you can consider that in your decisions. Wikinerd881 (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything that exists. Your opinion of the policy won't change the policy itself. Nintendo2000 (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And how come the less known schools like Pamatansang ng Lungsod ng Muntinlupa or the college of Rabiya Mateo Iloilo Doctors college got a page even do it isn’t heard or known at all? I find it discriminating for me as a student who is attending that school as of the moment Wikinerd881 (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
Not every article can be reviewed at once. If they also fail the standards of notability then they would be candidates for deletion too. But that's for a different discussion. Nintendo2000 (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to appeal this case to you kind people that such college I think deserves its own page. And what if for instance let’s say it gets more notable in the long run would you take that effort again just to make this page all over again? When there was an existing previously but was deleted because it wasn’t “notable” at that time. Hope you can take that into consideration since being a Wikipedia editor is a very hard task to do. Wikinerd881 (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
What you think about the policy doesn't change the fact that it's the policy. If it becomes notable, it will get its own page, yes. Effort isn't a reason to keep an article. Bluntly there wasn't much effort involved here anyway - it's literally three sentences long. Nintendo2000 (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heres a news article I found that mentions Lyceum of Alabang from Manila Standard https://manilastandard.net/business/biz-plus/314282100/pcci-spearheads-lgbt-centric-job-fair.html Do research papers count to add to it’s notability? Wikinerd881 (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
Coverage needs to be in-depth. An incidental mention doesn't count. Nintendo2000 (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a big notability of the school which mentions their real estate course by ABS CBN they were even featured on TV Patrol and the graduates were interviewed on television due to the online course being graduated by OFW or Overseas Filipino workers. This goes to be an in-depth mention not an incidental one which can show it has notability given by ABS CBN

https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/08/31/22/40-ofws-nagtapos-sa-online-course-sa-gitna-ng-pandemya

Here are more articles I found from Manila Standard mentioning the school Lyceum of Alabang

https://manilastandard.net/gallery/news-in-photos/221394/anti-crime-program.html

https://manilastandard.net/home-design/residential/317872/pushing-the-envelope-in-sustainability.html

Keyword for this article

IDC currently has partnerships with the University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines in :Cagayan de Oro, Xavier University and Lyceum University of the Philippines in Alabang.

https://www.philstar.com/sports/2015/12/14/1532810/patts-cdsl-topple-uclaa-rivals/amp/

Here’s some from Phil star about the school participating in UCLAA back in 2015

https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2013/10/10/1243373/filipino-choirs-rule-intl-choral-fest/amp/

Here as a chorale fest participant

https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/05/17/news/national/prc-postpones-real-estate-licensure-exam/873530

This mentions LOA about the postponement of the Real Estate licensure exams

So I could say that the school has gained a decent amount of notability over the years it may not be as :notable as the well known Philippine Universities. Wikinerd881 (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

These are all incidental mentions. Again, coverage needs to be about the school itself, significant, and in-depth. Nintendo2000 (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/08/31/22/40-ofws-nagtapos-sa-online-course-sa-gitna-ng-pandemya

This one I don’t think is an accidental mention only because it interviews the school and goes in depth about their program for Real Estate Management and please also look at the video in the article don’t just overlook it You can see there all what I described. Wikinerd881 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

An interview is a primary source; you need to cite secondary sources. To quote WP:ORG,

"A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include

corporate annual or financial reports, proxy statements,
memoirs or interviews by executives,
public announcements of corporate actions (press releases),
court filings, patent applications,
government audit or inspection reports,
customer testimonials or complaints,
product instruction manuals or specifications."

Nintendo2000 (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dont you get my point the interview was just an additional thing for the news article but Lyceum of Alabang is being noted on how it helped those 40 OFWS finish their course. Which I would think that it shows enough notability. Am I right? Wikinerd881 (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
No, the news article is about an event. It involves 40 students graduating from the school, but it isn't notable because of the school. It's notable because they're overseas workers who finished an online course despite COVID. The article doesn't actually discuss or describe the school itself. Nintendo2000 (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I give up you can delete the article Wikinerd881 (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly there is no evidence that the school is notable, I do appreciate the passion to save this article Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Gibney

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

Make-up artist, actress and stuntwoman. But she does not meet our notability criteria. As an actress, she's only acted in short films or has held very minor roles ("Pretty disco dancer" is my favorite). She's been on stage once but apparently, the critics panned her performance and that unflattering line should probably be dropped from the article if it avoids deletion. The current refs are almost all links to various databases (12 out of 17 by my count). Her best claim to fame is that she wrote and directed a short film which was shortlisted for a (not particularly notable) award. This leads to three references that simply mention her name. All in all, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of WP:SIGCOV. A search in mainstream national news sources (like in the Irish Times, the Irish Examiner, on RTÉ, etc) returns absolutely nothing. Not even passing mentions. The only mainstream media source in which the subject is seemingly mentioned even in passing is that theatre review in the Irish Independent. A search in industry news sources, like the Irish Film & Television Network (which will typically name-drop even normal jobbing actors in news updates), returns only two trivial/passing mentions. As noted in the nom, that we are relying almost entirely on ROTM database entries (and passing mentions) strongly suggests that WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG are not met. Guliolopez (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantive sources. This is someone who is credited on minor films with roles like "Additional Make-Up Trainee Zoe Gibney". The short-list for the Virgin Media award might indicate that Gibney may be on the way to greater things; then again, that might turn out to be the high point. In any case, notability has not yet been achieved. (p.s. I am unable to search on Irish newspapers, so will check back in case someone finds sources that I cannot.) Lamona (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jan Ciechanowicz. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Polish Soviet Socialist Republic

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

The marginal idea of Jan Ciechanowicz, a Polish activist in Lithuania, was supported by him and his ephemeral Polish Party for Human Rights, which was not even registered in the USSR. The idea was expressed only in the party's program, and was never supported by any concrete action. The party, moreover, probably did not include many people, except the founder. Suggestions that Gorbachev or Jaruzelski supported the idea can be put between fairy tales.

The article itself is erroneous, since this "republic" was intended by the author to include all the lands that belonged to Poland before World War II and were later incorporated into the USSR, that is, part of Lithuania with Vilnius, Western Belarus and Western Ukraine with Lviv. Because of this, I do not suggest a merge with the Jan Ciechanowicz article.

The notion should not be confused with Vilnius autonomy, which was an actual political idea. Marcelus (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Lithuania, and Poland. Marcelus (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Jan Ciechanowicz. Interesting historical trivia but likely fails WP:GNG (sources in the article barely meet WP:SIGCOV with regards to it and are also barely reliable). My BEFORE found only two passing mentions in reliable scholarly works. See also ongoing discussion at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:01:31:Wschodniopolska_Socjalistyczna_Republika_Radziecka. Right now I am seeing this as, well, interesting historical trivial that is a bit below notability treshold for a stand-alone article, but deserves to be mentioned in another article and possibly redirected there (note that AFAIK the term doesn't exist in English discourse outside this Wikipedia entry; the translation is literal and technically correct but ORish on the level that English Wikipedia is the only place to use it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Substantially trim and merge to Jan Ciechanowicz. Agree with Piotrus, sounds like trivia, but worth a short mention in Ciechanowicz's article. Renata•3 05:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content and redirect to Jan Ciechanowicz, per Piotrus. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Sopranos characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soprano family

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

Does not meet GNG or any other notability standard (insufficient coverage in reliable sources) and is not necessary as a split from List of Sopranos characters either. Severe over-detail and MOS:INUNIVERSE problems requiring WP:TNT. Should be redirected or deleted. Search results on Google Scholar turn up numerous hits, but they are either passing references, or focused on The Sopranos as a TV show, not the fictional crime family. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a note that this page was not a recent split. The split happened in April of 2006. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Keep. Page was heavily edited a few years ago to remove sub paragraphs for every character. The page does have a citation problem, but how does one make citations for scenes and dialogue from a TV series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edimeo25 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- One can make citations e.g. by writing <ref>Season 3, episode 4</ref>, but more importantly, articles are not supposed to be based entirely or largely on WP:PRIMARY sources. TompaDompa (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the info. Edimeo25 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Sopranos characters. IF the topic is notable, this should be shown with sources in the text, no such sources are presented there (or here, so far). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 29 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!} 17:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:For what it's worth, there is another page user Ganesha811 listed for deletion last week which is similar to this page, The Corleone Family. Same format and style inspired by the wikipedia pages for real life mafia crime families, such as The Geneovese Crime Family, or the DeCavalcante Crime Family (real life New Jersey mafia family). Consensus was to Keep. Edimeo25 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Most of this is WP:OR and unsourced. It also doesn't pass WP:LISTN as separately notable from the main character list. It doesn't make sense to split this out as its own article, as the show is literally called The Sopranos and is about the family. It would be like having a "list of Marvel superheroes" in addition to a "list of Marvel characters" -- they are the same thing. The familial connections between the characters can be described in the notable articles about the show, the individual notable characters, and the main character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a book titled "The Sopranos: A Family History" authored by Allen Rucker and David Chase written in an "in-universe" style. This could be used as a source for citations. Article could use editing, not deleting. Clancybrothersbook (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Sopranos characters. This in-universe-style of writing is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, not to mention that it's largely unsourced with some original research thrown in. Joyous! | Talk 03:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Maciag

AfDs for this article:

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

Maybe the article was ok under standards of 2006 when it was previously discussed for deletion but now it looks far worse. Though the article is quite long I cannot see notability of Mr Maciag, maybe because the article itself is a coatrack describing everything but him. Moreover, there are no sources. Niegodzisie (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Politics. Niegodzisie (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These unsourced Articles give Wiki a black eye in the public's view. No sources of any kind found, [2] just that talking about a shop-lifter. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still appears to be a vanity page, as the last AfD almost 20 yrs ago discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That shop-lifter is just another person of the same name. Niegodzisie (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on TNT grounds; the whole thing is so grossly promotional, unsourced, and with the few things that look like references turning out to be concealed external links (very, very unpleasant for our readers), this is a truly horrible article. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how this individual meets WP:NBIO. Side-note: created by User:Pawmacp, possible ancient WP:SELFPROMO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. In 2006, this promotion would have been overlooked, but now we must delete it. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Fort, Arizona

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

A rocky knoll, not a "populated place". I could find no evidence of it being a notable peak. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete location is in the Prescott National Forest at the end of the road that goes to Horsethief Basin Recreation Area. Extremely unlikely that there is a settlement or anything else there. Mountain in a mountainous area. Elinruby (talk) 15:13, 31 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinaveta, Arizona

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

A spot on I-40 where there is nothing at all, entered from Granger's Arizona Names. I could find nothing out about it. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur. Nothing there at all. At all. Been there six or seven times with no clue the place had a name. It's the highway exit for Seligman is all, but that's too far away to redirect and I really don't think the name is in common use, or it would have a sign or *something* Elinruby (talk) 15:23, 31 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 delete per G7 $Salvio giuliano$ 14:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anusha Nuthula

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

Non-notable actress. Fails WP:NACTOR. I draftified the article due to notability concerns and as it is insufficiently referenced with no inline citations, but the author moved it back to mainspace without improvement so here we are. The first version of the biography had an 'about' template claiming 'This is the Official Page of Anusha Nuthula', suggesting undisclosed paid editing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith blanking by author. I requested G7. —Alalch E. 13:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 31 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!} 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block Commodities

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

Defunct company which did not receive significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mining company that turned to crypto before going belly up. Sources mention them, but this appears to be a mish mash of information. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Andriamandroso

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

I created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Uhooep (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article creator. BogLogs (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NBASIC, you could also use WP:G7. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in theoretical computer science

AfDs for this article:

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

It is quite possible that such a list could be encyclopedic - I wouldn't be surprised if it could be shown that this topic, in theory, meets WP:LISTN (which is likely true for many, if not all, fields of science). But the proper way to create such lists is to start with sources listing, well, "important publications in theoretical computer science".

Instead, what we have here is pure WP:OR, a mostly random and unreferenced list of works that are "important" according to random editors and unclear inclusion criteria. What few references there are go to show the notability of some works cited, but not the notability of such list as a grouping.

There are problems with structure - for example, "Arora & Barak's Computational Complexity and Goldreich's Computational Complexity" are added as a single entry (despite being separate works) because of a single review that reviewed both works.

Worse, the inclusion of some works here is pretty bizarre, demonstrating OR nature of this list and not respecting even the vague inclusion criteria that are mentioned in the lead. To name just two problematic examples, the last position on the list, Hehner's Practical Theory of Programming doesn't appear particularly influential in my BEFORE at all (GScholar shows ~350 citations, no reviews and no indication of any awards). Even worse is the inclusion of the paper Proving Assertions about Parallel Programs Ashcroft, Edward A. (1975), which even the very list nominated here describes as " It did not receive much attention" and GScholar shows it has just a ~200 citations - this pretty much looks like just an "average" paper. Putting such works in the same list as Turing's On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem (i.e. the work that introduced the concept of the Turing's proof and has a 5-digit citaiton number according to GS) seems, well, very ORish.

To conclude, if anyone can find some sources that demonstrate this topic meets LISTN, maybe it could be rescued after some major pruning/referencing, but IMHO the current mess deserves only WP:TNTing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are indeed sources that list the most important papers and books published in computer science, which would cover this article and its siblings List of important publications in computer science and List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing. (And as you surmise, there are articles like this for other sciences, such as List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in chemistry, List of important publications in physics, etc., all of which share the same Topic creator/Breakthrough/Influence set of criteria.) One list is found in Harry R. Lewis, Ideas That Created the Future: Classic Papers of Computer Science, MIT Press, 2021. There is the ACM Classic Books series, the result of a poll of ACM members. There is the Communications of the ACM 25th anniversary edition in 1983, which reprinted famous papers that had appeared in it. And I'm sure there are others. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREARESOURCES is great, but that doesn't invalide the issues that the current list is pure, 100%, WP:OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are couple more books that can be used for this: Great Papers in Computer Science, Phillip A. Laplante, ed., IEEE Press, 1996; and Software Pioneers: Contributions to Software Engineering, Manfred Broy, Ernst Denert, eds. Springer, 2012. And there are also university course materials that list these, such as: Great Works in Programming Languages, collected by Benjamin C. Pierce, Professor at University of Pennsylvania. If you look at these lists, certain names and papers keep popping up over and over ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Great Papers in Computer Science obviously implies relevance to the List of important publications in computer science, not the subtopic discussed here. I certainly agree we should keep and improve the former, but why do we need sublists? Where is a work on Great Papers in Theoretical Computer Science? And likewise, software engineering =/= theoretical computer science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were split up for length reasons in 2009, see Talk:List of important publications in computer science#Page too long. I agree that the split itself can be hard to source sometimes; for instance, I expected to see E. F. Codd's foundational paper in relational database theory in this article, not the other one. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Also, the sources you cite are arguably related to List of important publications in computer science, and the list here, plus others you list, likely need merging or redirecting... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the only complaint are certain entries, then they can be discussed on the talk page, and determined what should remain as is, be changed, or be removed. Dream Focus 12:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus This is not the only complaint. The main complain is that 100% entries there are WP:OR. The topic is arguably notable, but it needs to be rewritten from scratch, into "list of important publications in this field according to reliable sources which call them important" instead of what we have now which is "list of publications in this field that random Wikipedia volunteers consider important". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just need a better inclusion criteria. Won notable awards, was required for college students, is listed as notable publication in textbooks, or is mentioned as significant in a notable publication. I am currently looking through search results for "history of theoretical computer science" and seeing some potentially good results. Dream Focus 12:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right - and then this needs to be WP:TNTed and rewritten from scratch, as I said in my OP. Realistically, a few entries from the current list may likely end up being shown to be notable, and if someone does a major rewrite during this AfD, we may end up not even "deleting" this formally. Good luck rescuing this; as I said, the underlying topic is likely notable - it's just the current execution is so bad this needs to be reworked from start. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need to be destroyed, just find references for things. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/resultsadvanced?vid=4&sid=fb04b3de-8987-41be-b10b-c7b51a2c6313%40redis&bquery=%22Proceedings+of+the+London+Mathematical+Society%22+AND+%22Alan+Turing%22+AND+%22theoretical+computer+science%22&bdata=JnR5cGU9MSZzZWFyY2hNb2RlPUFuZCZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d for instance. Searching for what is listed and the exact phase "theoretical computer science" shows results. Someone familiar with this topic can look it over hopefully. This website is on the Wikipedia Library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org Dream Focus 13:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclusion criteria are arbitrary, with a seemingly random assortment of papers included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced WP:OR. The "inclusion criteria" are partial ("Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important"), and what is present is vague and arbitrary. A list of landmark papers could conceivable be created (and properly sourced), but this mess needs to be WP:TNTd. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is the inclusion criteria? As an article it serves no purpose. The academic community would never use it as at first appearence it seems to be mish-mash of WP:OR entries. The average reader won't read it, so who exactly is it for? Who maintains it? It is an ill-thoughtout mess, with no value to anybody really. Everybody in own their specialism, knows what the best journals-articles are already. scope_creep^Talk 21:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 18:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. Seems to meet WP:NLIST. Sources that deal with books on theoretical computer science:

http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~madhusudan/courses/Fall2020/book.pdf (search inside for "books")
https://bookauthority.org/books/best-theoretical-computer-science-books

I recognise this list is not the most robust, but also seems like nominator agrees this is probably a notable grouping of things, so have not delved deeply, assuming people won't dispute this.

Seems also that the article needs major improvement, including on the inclusion criteria and to remove the original research, but that is not a reason to delete. WP:DINC CT55555(talk) 18:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source doesn't even remotely deal with the topic of important theoretical computer science publications. A search for "books" revealed 15 results, none of which are any kind of survey of important publications (why not just give us a page number?), and even if it were, this would be one random author's opinion on the matter, not enough to sustain such a list. Your second source is WP:UGC. Type in any topic and you'll get a list of "The 20 best books on <insert random topic here>"...lists which contain a lot more than 20, and are just random book recommendations from random people, sorted by topic. This is wholly non RS, and you should know better. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective, arbitrary, perspective-laden thing that lacks clear inclusion criteria. The word "important" defies specificity. Kill this. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. If a rewrite can fix this, even if it needs to be a complete rewrite, then there should be a chance for that to be done before the content is deleted altogether. BD2412 T 03:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hoy

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

Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I am not convinced that there is anything particularly noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career in this instance, to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the sources in the article, one is a press release from his alma mata and another is a local news story reporting that someone local has become an ambassador - neither of these satisfy GNG. I can't find much more online - a few passing mentions as you'd expect for an ambassador (short quotations, passing mentions, and a couple of speeches he's given), all quite routine. WJ94 (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (politics) and WP:NBASIC. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Evidence is effectively absent. The few sources fail. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that this article subject passes WP:AUTHOR. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia G. Franklin

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

Article has been without references since 2011, lacks notability. Tried to find ways to improve this page but it doesn’t seem to meet criteria for notability. Language is largely promotional and unsupported. Marleeashton (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Marleeashton (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NAUTHOR appears to be the most likely notability criterion for this academic working in a "book field". I see three reviews [3][4][5] of Writing Women's Communities, and one review [6] of Academic Lives. Another 1-2 reviews would make this clearer to me. (It is likely that her new book will receive some reviews, but as usual, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After taking a closer look at the article and researching the subject, i dont think she is notable enough to have an article. Fails WP:BASIC and further, the fails WP:ANYBIO. After taking a look at WP:AUTHOR - i see that she has been cited by a few peers, but it's not substantial. I dont think she passes other criteria items listed in WP:AUTHOR.

On a side note, I do agree with @Marleeashton as this article sounds very promotional. RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - adding to what Russ Woodroofe has found: here is another review of Writing Women's Communities, in American Literature, and here is a review of Academic Lives in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Based on the available reception of her books, I think she passes WP:NAUTHOR. Bridget (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, she is one of the editors of the journal Biography, per the official website, which is an acceptable source per item #8 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes. Her position might be a contributing factor towards satisfying criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC - depending on if Biography is a "major well-established academic journal in their subject area". Bridget (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C8 also requires chief editorship. Biography fluctuates between two and five coeditors, none designated as head editor, and almost all of them are from the sponsoring department (UH's Center for Biographical Research). This indicates the publication is a shared responsibility of CBR faculty rather than anything with hierarchical editorship (although if anyone was at the top it would be the founding editor George Simson), so C8 would not apply. JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see - my mistake! Bridget (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep. For WP:NAUTHOR, I'm looking for 2 books with 2+ reviews each, and I see this here after the good find of the Chronicle piece by Bridget. It does not look to me like the journal editorship is of the sort discussed by WP:NPROF C8 (the journal looks minor, and her role looks short of editor-in-chief), but one notability criterion is enough. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:28, 27 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!} 08:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems ok for AUTHOR with what's given for reviews. Maybe C8 for NPROF too. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems ok but the additional citation tag should still be left, because the article still needs more references cite.Epcc12345 (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was easy to find academic reviews of both her books and add them to the article, both suggest notability to me. This article needs improvement, not deletion. CT55555(talk) 23:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NAUTHOR, assuming the reviews are substantial and reliable enough. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward M. Bernstein

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

Non-notable. This page is entirely self-promotion with the exception of a single line where the subject ran (and lost) a political campaign. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: as submitter Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC) (your nomination is your Delete vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is written more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article, cites no WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing at all to support the content, and claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable in the absence of any GNG-worthy reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He does seem to have been covered many times in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, although I haven't read those articles carefully enough to see if they are in-depth or independent enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Even though he is a failed candidate and this is clearly a promotional biography of a living person, he still might be notable and we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on the current state of the article.

QuintinK (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find, the articles seem to cover his advertising methods...not him. "Lawyer Ed Bernstein is a fixture on local television, with his ubiquitous commercials and his weekly talk show. But though you see him every day, there’s a lot about Bernstein you probably don’t know" [7]https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/enough-said-call-ed-bernstein-a-pioneer-of-legal-advertising/

A delete and re-write of this article is needed at a bare minimum. In the current state, it's just an advertisement probably written by marketing people. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bit of local coverage in local-interest contexts isn't necessarily a free pass over WP:GNG in and of itself. GNG isn't just "count the media hits you can find and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number", but also takes into account questions of depth, geographic and temporal ranges, and the overarching national or international significance of the context in which the person is getting covered. So a person isn't necessarily going to clear GNG just for having the expected local coverage in local-interest contexts, like an unsuccessful election campaign or a local television talk show. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you believe there are sources that could contribute to this subject's notability, you need to specify them, not just allude to them existing. Now is the time to mention them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The University of Nevada-Las Vegas has launched a youth-centered program named after him, but I suppose because he's made a large donation. See the foundation mentioned in a WaPo article [8] and the UNLV announcement [9], which is a press release. Does having a program at a university named after you confer notability in Wikipedia? If yes, Keep, if not, delete, the rest is promo fluff.

Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, and the sources are not independent of the subject.-KH-1 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat.-KH-1 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The introduction states that "Edward M. Bernstein is a prominent Southern Nevada attorney, philanthropist, politician, and television talk show host." Let's analyze these claims. I have always found User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability to be helpful when considering attorneys. While not official policy, Bernstein does not appear to meet any of these that could indicate there is enough out there to meet notability. The article does not cover his philanthropy and as much as I love my fellow Democrats, challenging John Ensign in a fairly normal election does not contribute to notability. The closest he could come is the ~~radio~~ show, but unlike candidate/show host/successful person Willie Wilson, it does not appear to be nationally syndicated and is purely local. The article also includes a lot of tactics used to mask the lack of notability. It lists where Bernstein is admitted to practice law (a list which conflicts with his own website). It lists various local honors with no context as to their significance. It even lists various celebrities who have appeared on his radio show. DeleteMpen320 (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Uhooep (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Gough

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

I originally created this bio, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) defines diplomatic notability as a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I am not currently convinced that this criteria is met. As for the CMG award, these are routinely awarded to British diplomats. Uhooep (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Director, Eastern Europe and Central Asia at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. Uhooep (talk) 08:33, 31 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!} 06:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil-language television series

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

There are no other lists for TV series based on language. Only country, network and streaming platform. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Tamil Nadu. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the list is useful, sourced and provides encyclopaedic knowledge. Precedent is unnecessary. Moreover, users have consistently removed the addition of TV/web series from 'List of Films by Year' pages - and hence there isn't a central list where titles can be added over time. These productions are notable (even more notable than most films which release every year) - and hence need a strong holding page. Neutral Fan (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of French-language Canadian television series exists. Canada is a country that speaks two languages and produces two forms of media. The Indian subcontinent is the same with Tamil and other languages. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. This could be redeveloped on that basis. But then we'd have to include even cable TV series (which are mostly soap operas), right? Because no matter how different streaming TV series (erroneously referred to as web series) and cable TV series be, they are still the same industry: television. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 06:08, 24 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!} 05:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Tamil-language television series. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 31 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 Anubhav Sinha. Just a note that there was a similar conclusion as the 1st AFD years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benaras Media Works

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails GNG and NCORP. Sources are all mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV about the subject of the article, no objection to a merge with Anubhav Sinha // Timothy :: talk 00:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, nothing more than directory of film produced by the company. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:06, 30 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!} 05:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge appropriate info to Anubhav Sinha and Delete. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Manvatkar

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

Non-notable director and producer of non-notable short films, fails per WP:DIRECTOR and WP:NBASIC. I can't find any reliable sources about her short films and awards won. All the refs present here are primary, unreliable and interviews. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, United Arab Emirates, and India. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - This woman is well-known director in UAE. Her biography should stay. Valiaveetil (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
How you can say that "This woman is well-known director in UAE". 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass WP:DIRECTOR --- Misterrrrr (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, the criteria for directors is not met, and no significant coverage in secondary sources. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of South Park characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Park families

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

This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of South Park Elementary staff (2nd nomination) (I'd nominate all relevant lists in one nomination but I don't know how; the remaining ones are List of students at South Park Elementary and the List of recurring South Park characters). Just like with the aforementioned list that was just redirected to List of South Park characters, I think all the other lists need to share the same fate due to failing WP:LISTN and containing unnecessary WP:FANCRUFTy plot details and nothing but. One list for characters from this show sufficies (if there is anything anyone wants to merge now or in the future, it will be preserved in the article's history).

Note: if this is closed as a redirect just like the previous AfD was, I plan on boldly redirecting the other two lists rather than having two more likely repetitive discussions at AfD unless there are valid arguments against such a course of action presented here.

Pinging editors who participated in the prior AfD: @Rorshacma, Why? I Ask, Orientls, Susmuffin, Shooterwalker, and Serratra: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of South Park characters: All of the prominent characters are covered in the main list. There is no evidence that the families are notable as groups. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Serratra (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lorstaking (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy over my comment from the talk page to bring to light the larger issue here: "There's no real logic as to where information on secondary characters in South Park appears on Wikipedia -- for an extreme example, Liane Cartman has her own page, a section of the page for Eric Cartman, an entry on "list of South Park characters," and an entry on this page; all four places duplicate information and diverge in what they emphasize or consider current. It would make sense for someone to systematically go through all the South Park character pages and decide which "level" each character deserves, merge all the info there, and create redirects." The problem goes beyond whether this particular page is redundant or overly long; the problem is that, while Wikipedia has chosen to have hundreds of pages about the TV show South Park--which is perfectly in line with the depth of coverage given to other shows with a similar amount of episodes and secondary media coverage---there is no organization to those pages as a whole and no guideline as to where any particular kind of information is supposed to go. Deleting just one page will barely begin to address issues of duplicated content & people just adding lines to multiple pages in an haphazard fashion every time a new episode airs; a larger-scale revision and guideline is called for. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of South Park characters - To briefly summarize my argument at the prior, related AFD mentioned in the nomination, the actual prominent characters are already covered on the main South Park character list, and the ones that are not are very minor characters should not be listed, making this a redundant spinout of that main character list. I advocated Deletion for the previous AFD, and am still fine with that here, honestly, but since consensus there showed that most people would prefer it at least being Redirected, I will go with that here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This fails WP:LISTN and does not have separate notability from the main character list. At best, this is redundant to the main list and could be merged. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:32, 31 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!} 04:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Horne

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

Promotional article on a non-notable subject. There is no secondary sourcing on this subject whatsoever. The writing was promotional (there's more in the history), and the links were primary and in many cases didn't even involve the subject. The PROD was denied by the main editor, but I'll repeat what I said in it: "There are no reliable secondary sources listed here; the best we have is an interview on an eco website and a blog post--the rest is organizational, primary, and often doesn't even mention the subject at all. The books aren't verified by reviews or other secondary sources, they're self-published, and they don't see to confer any kind of notability. Some promotional and unverified passages and a linkfarm were already removed, but the entire article should really be nuked as a BLP violation, given the sourcing." When the main editor denied the PROD, they responded by basically adding more spammy/promotional links. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Books are not sufficiently significant to meet WP:AUTHOR. BruceThomson (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The books I found clearly satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. GNG is met by the article subject. The promotional tone of the article can easily be fixed, not a valid reason to delete. Serratra (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Which books are those, Serratra? Also, you know why I'm blocking you. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I have responded to Dmries message on my talk page. Thanks. :). I propose to "Keep" this article and others I have contributed to. Let us be civil please. RoseSuccess7 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Environment, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have responded to Dmries message on my talk page. Thanks. :). I propose to "Keep" this article and others I have contributed to. Let us be civil please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseSuccess7 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I tried to improve the article and to find secondary sources, but I could not. I agree with the nominator, this is a puffed up article that lacks secondary sources. I don't think she passes WP:AUTHOR. I'm willing to change my !vote if anyone can point to some good sources, so please ping me if you do and I'll keep an open mind. CT55555(talk) 12:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to this, the article was moved from Maria Auma to Maria Horne and there might be more references under Maria Auma that might assist with this debate and change your vote. RoseSuccess7 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BASIC, and WP:PROMO. In addition to an online search, I also searched the Wikipedia Library, including ProQuest, with various searches related to Maria Horne and Maria Auma, and did not find support for notability for the subject of this article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Itrah Broadcasting Network Television

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

Non notable TV station and company which fails to meet WP:BROADCAST and WP:ORGCRITE. References are primary and unreliable, most of them showing "Page not found", nothing about it on reliable sources and creator of the page seems to be connected with subject as YouTube source indicating. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Organizations, and Tanzania. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 13 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!} 03:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What can we do here to increase participation at AFD discussions? So many discussions have to be relisted because no one has commented on the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 24 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!} 03:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google Translate says that Al Itrah means "Do not subtract" or "I don't subtract". I assume that it is a theological term or someone's name. The station's name IBN TV or the organization name AL-Itrah Foundation might be a better name for the article. https://iqna.ir/sw/news/3474408/wasifu-mfupi-wa-sheikh-hassan-mwalupa includes the text "Fatema currently hosts a successful empowerment show on IBN-TV Africa called’ Educate, Empower & Inspire’ – a platform she uses to inspire those around her." https://iqna.ir/sw/news/3474408/wasifu-mfupi-wa-sheikh-hassan-mwalupa includes the text "Sheikh Mwalupa aliandaa warsha na kozi mbali mbali kwa waalimu kutoka taasisi mbali mbali ili kuwawezesha wajiboresha kitaaluma. Hadi wakati wa kifo chake, alikuwa akirekodi vipindi katika Televisheni ya IBN TV Africa na pia alikuwa akisomesha kwa njia ya intaneti katika Bilal Muslim Mission ya Kenya. (Sheikh Mwalupa organized various workshops and courses for teachers from various institutions to enable them to improve themselves professionally. Until the time of his death, he was recording programs at IBN TV Africa and he was also teaching through the Internet at the Bilal Muslim Mission in Kenya.)" Someone who speaks Swahili or Arabic might be able to find better sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Gordy

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

Very little, if any, significant mentions in independent sourcing. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:45, 10 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!} 03:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is substantial coverage available in the following articles available through WP:LIBRARY:

YARBROUGH S. The Dangling Days. Sewanee Review. 2020;128(4):699-724. doi:10.1353/sew.2020.0057 [10]

McGowan, S. (2010, 10). Grant gordy. Acoustic Guitar, 21, 18-20. [11]

Perlmutter, A. (2017, 07). Recording review: Master flatpickers play a wide-ranging series of duets. Acoustic Guitar, 28, 79. [12]

Jfire (talk) 04:03, 17 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, 24 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!} 03:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those sources identified above seem ok, not the best, but suitable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:46, 31 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!} 03:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accuquote

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

The NYT source is the only source that might contribute to WP:GNG, and even that is a fairly passing mention. Looking around for other sources, I'm mostly just seeing the company named in lists of insurance providers, and that sort of thing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of a lawsuit for unjust enrichment from pop-up ads [13], is about the best I can find, and it's also trivial coverage. They're mentioned, but no reliable coverage or anything at length about the company). 110 staff for an insurance brokerage isn't huge, that's quite small. The insurance company where I work has that number of people in their customer service department alone. There are many hits in Gnews but it's all advertising in Kiplinger's personal finance. Oaktree b (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 19:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Udell

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

References are all short quotes from Udell, no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity spam. "Udell says" or "according to expert"-type articles aren't suitable for BLP. I don't find anything beyond him talking about life insurance products. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article for the company where he works is also up for deletion discussion; it's a rather small outfit that advertises heavily in financial magazines, but isn't at GNG or NCORP either. Oaktree b (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Was created by the same sockfarm too. MER-C 11:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Hamilton Taylor

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

References that mention Taylor substantially don't appear to be WP:RS — primarily blogs or WP:UGC. Other sources only mention him in passing. The article was recreated after it was G5 deleted at Philip H. Taylor, having been created by a blocked undisclosed paid editor. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crount. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources are either not independent of the subject (i.e press releases/interviews) or passing mentions.-KH-1 (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBASIC, references are blog news, interviews and profiles. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Kingdom, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 31 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. I hope this article can spend a decent amount of time in Draft space where it can be improved. If moved directly back to main space, expect a 2nd AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Uganda

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

Poorly written highly NPOV. Better to scrap it and start over. UtherSRG (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Uganda. UtherSRG (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TNT. The topic itself is notable, but the article is unacceptably written, and lacks balance and depth; additionally it does not conform to our WP:NPOV guidelines. It was not ready for article space when the creator moved it from draft space. Blow it up and start over, as it currently is written like tabloid material, rather than an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's an article in there, but "organized law-breaking" is not how we start it. TNT and get a much better intro, with stats and an NPOV discussion about crime in general in the country. Oaktree b (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - important topic. I suspect that the police often *are* the criminals, so it might not be as NNPOV as it seems. However it needs better organization and more explanation. I did a quick copy-edit just to make the text a little less impenetrable, but I also had to tag it fairly heavily. I took a quick look at the references and didn't see anything egregious, but it's been a while since I have done anything about Uganda. Our coverage there is very scanty though, as I recall. Elinruby (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is already written, it just needs some polishing up. I agree that it is skewed heavily against the police and government, but I believe it just needs to be rewritten. Akdulj (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Princess Beatrice. I think that there is a consensus to Redirect this article right now. If this individual goes on to achieve notability beyond their parents, an article can be created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna Mozzi

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

I don't see how a 16-month-old individual can be independently notable; notability is not inherited, and the only content is a family tree, which alone cannot sustain an article (WP:NOTGENEALOGY). All sources appear to be tabloid or non-substantial coverage, and given the subject's youth, sources satisfying WP:GNG are unlikely to exist at this time. ^Complex/_Rational 00:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In light of some of the comments below, I believe redirection to Princess Beatrice is reasonable. I still think she is too young for there to exist enough independent content to sustain a standalone article, but such coverage will exist in due time. ^Complex/_Rational 01:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England. ^Complex/_Rational 00:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per notability guidelines, being related to someone notable doesn’t establish notability. Raltoid (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Beatrice? She's only famous for being born. She's 11th in the line of succession, so that's a bust for GNG. Her birth is covered, nothing about her as a person (and even if there was, she's 2 yrs old. Toddlers rarely if ever do anything for GNG. I mean we can revisit if she reinvents the wheel or something.) Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not notable. Elinruby (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's not notable because she's related to someone. She's notable because she's tenth in line to one of the most notable thrones in the world. Plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a precedent for having articles about young members of royal families; see Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princess Beatrice. Delete the page with a possibility of re-creation if she gains individual notability. FireInMe (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a Redirect to her mother as a useful ATD, because she is a plausible search term, but we should avoid having articles on people as young as she currently is unless absolutely necessary in my view. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp and Partofthemachine. Those listed among the upper numbers at Succession to the British throne are notable upon birth and receive considerable publicity. Being positioned in tenth place automatically qualifies her as the subject of an English Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect. Her age should not be a factor in this discussion. Nor who she is related to. We should simply assess if she meets WP:GNG. I think she doesn't, as she is only notable for one event, which is her birth, see WP:BLP1E but I predict she will be notable soon. Redirect to her closest notable relative. CT55555(talk) 02:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NPERSON, and WP:GNG. After a comprehensive search that took me most of the day, I’m afraid I couldn’t find sufficient reliable independent sources to establish notability. Serratra (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what did you find during your day long search for references, Serratra? I'm curious. They may not be sufficient sources but they might help the discussion progress. What turned up for you? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Liz, I'm curious too. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Drmies, for the past 3-4 weeks, Serratra's pattern has been to show up at AFDs and vote the opposite of where the majority "vote" is heading. So, his random "Keeps" when everyone else is saying "Delete" (and vice versa) have caused some unnecessary discussion relistings. I guess he has been blocked as a sockpuppet now but I thought he was just trolling, throwing a monkeywrench into a lot of AFD discussions. But he knew all of the appropriate lingo so most editors tried to dialogue with him about his opinions but he never returned to engage in a proper discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Liz, I was so busy striking through the comments and reverting them where possible that I wasn't really looking for a pattern, though I did see a few where they just went along with the one comment that was already there. I also didn't look to see how much time they spent between edits, and it doesn't really matter anyway: it's all vacuous. Yes, they're blocked, and yes, a few of those discussions were relisted and/or closed, so it is possible that they managed to derail the process. But you look at a lot of these, and you've seen them at work now--they're persistent, but a warned admin counts for two; next time, feel free to drop me a line, or to add to the SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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