Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 18	July 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete‎. (G5) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Lawton

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

Non-notable. All sources in the article fail to help it pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO as they are not independent of Lawton. I will note that notability is not inherited, so the fact that he is the son of Geoff Lawton is irrelevant. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, and Australia. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick BEFORE shows there is nothing on google or through TWL suggesting notability. I never like deleting articles so soon after they are created, but this is a near cookie-cutter WP:NOTPROMO article. —siro χ o 00:21, 20 July 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 Algeria at the World Athletics Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria at the 1993 World Championships in Athletics

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

Contested draftification. Article is entirely unsourced and was draftified because of this. No improvement has been made in this regard. Would support draftification naturally. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Algeria. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per other similar articles (see Clyde note below) ~~Support noms suggestion to draftify. I added one specific ref, but it still needs a bit of work before move to mainspace. Presumably same for Algeria at the 1991 World Championships in Athletics.~~ —siro χ o 00:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider draftification: However, if it is considered that this will simply be moved back to Main space then delete 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the much better attended discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Algeria_at_the_2022_World_Athletics_Championships which I closed as snow redirect. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did nothing wrong.. All my articles are correct and they all contain reliable international sources and you can be sure of that. Nassimohr (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By any chance, can you provide the names of the sources? Other editors can help you write the citations if you can provide as much detail as possible? Denaar (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since the rest of the articles were at: [1]. I don't have a strong feeling of when we should keep/delete this type of article, but consistency if beneficial too. Denaar (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect same as the other articles, the only reason this one was treated differently is because this AFD predated that one. Would be wildly inconsistent to do anything except this, as Algeria at the 1993 event doesn't have demonstrably different levels of coverage to all the other events. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 26 July 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!} 23:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intervision Song Contest 2008

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

Non-notable event; fails general notability guidelines and falls down on significant coverage (searching for more information only leads to Wikipedia mirror sites). Relies solely on one source, and some parts of the article are entirely unsourced and contravenes on original research guidance. Article was previously PRODded and objected, however keeping as a redirect would not add value given a lack of article or redirect for other Intervision contests. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because this article also fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:ONESOURCE and WP:OR, as well as an additional issue with WP:SELFPUB:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Russia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a Russian-language event, so the nominator should have searched for Russian-language sources. There are a lot of references in the corresponding Russian article at ru:Интервидение-2008 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of references in the corresponding Russian-language article are not about the 2008 event specifically, but about the contest as a whole, the reasoning behind its revival and the future attempts at revival in 2014. Like on the English article, the Russian article is largely unsourced for the actual contest itself, the participants, the results and prizes awarded. Some of the information within the Russian article could be added to either this article or its parent, however a stand-alone article on a contest where the results of the contest itself continue to rely on a single source does not appear tenable to me. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect that newspapers in each participating country would have published articles the morning after the contest finals. Those newspaper articles are unlikely to be online, though. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main Intervision Song Contest article appears notable in a historic sense, but the individual year pages appear to just consist of tables without much else to say (WP:NOTSTATS?). Given the notability of the contest overall, any relevant information can easily be moved to the main article if it's not there already. The one and only source (for 2008) is Eurovoix, which in turn got all of its information from the history section of the contest's own website. As an another editor pointed out above, more care needs to be taken for foreign-language events, but even reading translated versions of the Russian Wikipedia, nearly everything notable would be fine as part of the main article. Grk1011 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Latvia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A partial merge of verifiable information to Intervision Song Contest seems best. But a blank and redirect is fine as well, as it still preserves history for future editors to revive the article if proper sources are found. —siro χ o 00:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted delete above, but would also be fine with an 'official' determination of "redirect". I find many times that drive-by editors just undo redirects without any improvement, so having this discussion to fall back on would be helpful. This would also leave open the possibility for Russian-language refs to be found for expansion in the future if the event actually finds itself notable. Grk1011 (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Archives908 (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there are a number of different outcomes sought.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, otherwise merge. There are definitely some contemporary sources discussing the 2008 contest, which appear likely sufficient to meet the GNG (I am not familiar with NewsMuz but it seems to be cited quite a bit in article space). And I'm not persuaded that this kind of Wikipedia coverage, which matches the format of many of our contest articles, raises any WP:NOT issues. Regarding the second article, I don't find this kind of bundled nom helpful because a serious response befitting the seriousness of deletion requires two entirely separate inquiries. But I will say that the likelihood of offline sources for the 1977 contest is sufficiently overwhelming that I feel comfortable including it in my weak keep !vote. -- Visviva (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safdar Tawakoli

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NSINGER. UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Afghanistan. UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I enjoyed listening to his music, though. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems extremely likely to meet GNG and possibly WP:MUSICBIO.7 English sources are somewhat spare. Here's a passing reference in english [2]. Here's a possible source [3]. There's a lot of hits in other languages: [4][5] —siro χ o 05:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources like https://www.bbc.com/persian/afghanistan/story/2006/07/060731_ag-studio7-tavakoli and http://afghannews.af/%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%87-%D9%88-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%82%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%B4%D8%AA%D9%88-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AF seem to indicate some notability. - Indefensible (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo and Indefensible above as meeting both NBASIC and MUSICBIO. It would be a bit surprising IMO if an Afghan singer with organic coverage on the FA, PNB and UR Wikipedias could not pass NBASIC. It would be even more surprising if a singer recognized by the government as the "sultan of dambura" and who was the subject of a two-day music festival at which his statue was unveiled did not meet MUSICBIO point 7 as a one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style. (At least, I don't think there's any question that Hazara folk music is a notable topic, even if we don't currently do a good job of covering it.) In any event the BBC festival link I posted and the AfghanNews link Indefensible posted above would seem to meet the NBASIC requirement of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. And given that I don't think either of us have much skill in searching in the local languages, I would venture that there are likely to be considerably more sources out there. -- Visviva (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Bahiraei

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

Fails notability. searching his name in English gives almost nothing, even in Persian there are only very few things about him. the article says he won a gold medal at the Asian Championship in 2007 which is wrong (probably just a junior medal) he also never played in a pro league or even a major national tournament. Sports2021 (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I removed some of the called out unverifiable information about a medal at the Asian Championships after attempting to verify (AFAICT the national team has never medaled in such a competition). That's not promising for this article, but I don't have a !vote as of now. —siro χ o 01:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable athlete who does not seem to pass GNG, the only sources available are passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:07, 22 July 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 Austin, Minnesota. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Arena

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

Entirely unreferenced article which offers no indication of notability. None found prior to nomination. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Minnesota. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As an NAHL (and former USHL) venue, it meets the threshold of notability. If it's sources you need, I can easily find any sources you may need. Tom Danson (talk)

I will happily withdraw if there is a policy which states that NAHL venues are inherently notable. That would, however, be contradictory to WP:ORGSIG (no company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is) and WP:NARENA (sporting arenas, stadia and other venues do not have presumed notability, and are expected to demonstrate notability through meeting the general notability guideline). Dorsetonian (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dorsetonian beat me to it; WP:NARENA explicitly holds that no matter the importance of the competitions held at a venue, notability still isn't inherited, even were the rink an Olympic venue. In this case, the sole determinant of notability is whether the subject can meet the GNG, and as a small town municipal rink, it would be very unusual for it to have gained more than routine coverage through the local press. No prejudice against changing my position should actual coverage of the subject in "significant detail" surface. Ravenswing 19:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sources in the article. Austin runs the arena so they cannot be used. I found a few circular and user generated sources which cannot be used. Anything that doesn't fall into those two only cover basic information, like opening hours or the fact that it is a hockey rink. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 20:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable building lacking independent third party sources. Flibirigit (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was just about to suggest a redirect to Austin, Minnesota#Sports where the stadium is mentioned then found these: https://www.austindailyherald.com/2015/07/riverside-on-schedule-rink-should-be-ready-for-hockey-this-fall/ and https://www.austindailyherald.com/2010/09/riverside-arena-makes-its-debut/ These two count as a single source as both are from the same publication. Also this: https://history.vintagemnhockey.com/page/show/1254491-riverside-arena. Possibly not enough to meet GNG. I'll wait and see if anything else is found.Rupples (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two newspaper articles are by different authors almost five years apart; they are not the same source. Kablammo (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of the source is the publisher itself, not the authors of the pieces. Austin Daily Herald = one source. Ravenswing 00:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:SOURCE that prevents the use of articles in an independent newspaper as reliable sources; in fact the contrary is true. Kablammo (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention what you are replying to. This comment almost feels like a straw man with how tangentially related it is to the discussion. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Austin, Minnesota#Parks and recreation. This humble arena is barely borderline notable (per the newspaper refs above) and it deserves a place in Wikipedia. However, I think a paragraph in the parks and rec section is better than a standalone article -- more easily watched and tended than a stub by itself. This is, after all, another parks and rec facility. After filling in a few more sentences from those refs, I don't think a standalone article will ever grow much unless something dramatic there makes the news (fire, flood, etc.)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Austin, Minnesota#Parks and recreation gets my support. Oppose delete. There is enough for a paragraph on the stadium from the sources listed in the AfD (now added). Not enough to keep without additional sourcing. Rupples (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are contradictory sources on the year the arena was opened. Article says 1973 (unsourced), The Austin Daily Herald states 1983 and here [6] it states 1976. Rupples (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Funnily enough it's the previously unsourced year of 1973 that's supported. May be Austin Daily Herald's 1983 is a typo? Rupples (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Austin, Minnesota#Parks and recreation per A. B. above, seems like the best solution all around absent significantly more sources. (I will note in passing that the statement made above that two articles in the same newspaper simply "are" the same source is not one that I can find support for in applicable policies and guidelines. WP:SOURCES is clear that "source" can refer to any of four definitions, all of which can affect reliability. Plainly, this is a context-sensitive determination; e.g. nobody would seriously argue that two separate books published by the same university press are automatically the same source. But anyway, that's probably neither here nor there as far as this particular article goes.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator. Even if this article is deleted, a redirect to Austin, Minnesota in its place would be entirely appropriate as the venue is mentioned there already (in two different sections). At the time of nomination the article was entirely unreferenced and there was nothing that could really be merged; now I have no objection to something along the lines of "merge some and redirect". (The first paragraph is already present - just merge the ref; the specifics of the 2010 and 2015 upgrades might seem a little undue, but adding the fact it was upgraded on those occasions alongside the build date seems entirely appropriate.) Dorsetonian (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the Parks and recreation section feels like the wrong place to merge into, IMO. That section concerns open spaces and nature reserves. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:03, 21 July 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!} 22:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Godbey

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

Non-notable musical businessperson. No links found other than social media, no mentions in RS in Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know they gave out multiple Grammy awards (or even nominations) to people with no notability. Interesting. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The album won, he didn't. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's an actual 2-time Grammy winner (with a verified page on the Grammys website).

https://www.grammy.com/artists/chris-godbey/2391

Sorry. I don't make the rules.

(Engineers/Mixers are also recognized in most Grammy Album categories)

Grammy Win #1 - https://www.grammy.com/awards/49th-annual-grammy-awards (Go to Best Contemporary R&B Gospel Album)

Grammy Win #2 - https://www.grammy.com/awards/51st-annual-grammy-awards (Go to Best Contemporary R&B Gospel Album) Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is needlessly sarcastic. Notability isn't an intrinsic attribute of an article's subject, it's about their coverage in independent, secondary, reliable sources. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Recording Academy seems to consider him a Grammy nominee and winner, even if it's for a project he worked on rather than an individual award. That passes WP:NMUSIC. Kalethan (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grammy awards for recordings are given to individuals (performers and production team, generally). For "performance" it often does not apply to the production team, and only to performers, but that's not the case here, so WP:NMUSICBIO#C8 applies. —siro χ o 02:01, 20 July 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 My Little Pony (2003 toyline)#My Little Pony: Pinkie Pie's Party (2008). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Pinkie Pie's Party

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

Fails WP:GNG. Doing a WP:BEFORE search brings nothing reliable and significant besides the IGN review. The game's Metacritic page is also a ghost town of critic reviews. Sparkl^talk 22:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Toys. Sparkl^talk 22:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can probably do a good merge to My Little Pony (let me know if there's a better target). Otherwise, given the 15 years that have passed, I lean towards a keep due to the in-depth IGN review as well as a mix of nontrivial-but-short passing mentions. —siro χ o 02:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge IGN appears to be the only review for this game, so it doesn't pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a pretty cut and dry merge. One non-trivial independent source falls short of general notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My Little Pony (2003 toyline)#My Little Pony: Pinkie Pie's Party (2008) would be a better merge target. --Mika1h (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support that marge target. —siro χ o 11:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and recommend this redirect target. Suriname0 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 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!} 22:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muriel Frost

AfDs for this article:

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

A relatively minor recurring character in DW, but there are literally no sources for her out there when I checked for BEFORE. There simply doesn't exist anything to justify GNG or SIGCOV, and the article already cites no sources. I'm not sure whether there are any good spots to redirect this article to, as she isn't mentioned at all in the Doctor Who Magazine article and I'm not sure if adding a mention there is a good idea or not, as that's the only good redirect target I can think of. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per nom. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to support a stand-alone article, or reliably explain its notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This unsourced article's topic is obviously not notable. A search for sources indicated that the character is probably not even the most prominent entity with the name "Muriel Frost". ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability found. Could be redirected to something like List of Doctor Who supporting characters, if someone adds some referenced information there. (e.g. Doctor Who, the encyclopedia: the definitive guide to the hit BBC series (2011) mentions that "Colonel Muriel Frost ... [was] killed by the Slitheen" (p.369).) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete why was this character even given an article to begin with? I know our notability standards were low in 2005, but every reoccurring DW character ever low? Dronebogus (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would seem are standards were that low. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The character has no SIGCOV. Alternatively, we could redirect to List of UNIT personnel. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn't mention Frost, and is already in the process of being merged into UNIT, so I doubt that would work as a redirect. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 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!} 22:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blinovitch Limitation Effect

AfDs for this article:

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

While a decently recurring element of the show that sees some occasional outside discussion, I simply can't find enough SIGCOV in order to justify its separation as an article. Most of the sources I found were trivial mentions, and while I found one scholar source and a couple of books giving a decent bit on it, I'm fairly certain it isn't enough to qualify as SIGCOV. A short description of the effect in another article would suffice, though whether that be in the main Doctor Who article or elsewhere, I'm not really sure of at this time. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only find coverage of this on fansites, wikis, and other unreliable sources. Nothing reliable to pass WP:V, let alone WP:SIGCOV to create a reliable reception about its notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could only find passing mentions of this topic. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no SIGCOV on the topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only passing mentions fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it fails WP:SIGCOV. Looking at the mention in the archived Village Voice article "A tech-free bit of science fiction that's inside-baseball enough to reference Blinovitch (a minor Dr. Whocharacter)..." Representative of the sources for the article. MtBotany (talk) 16:53, 25 July 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. With the round robin title swap presented below. I don't see a compelling case against preserving the history with some folks advocating for a merger, as a protected redirect could be done if necessary. Star Mississippi 01:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Kelly (mathematician)

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

Fails the notability standard per WP:NACADEMIC. I have found no significant coverage of Kelly's contributions to the mathematical field or his particular field of mathematics. He seems to be an impressive mathematician, but unfortunately has not had much of a large influence. GuardianH (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC) GuardianH (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics. --JBL (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics, which I think (in its concurrent AfD) should be kept. This David Kelly should not be confused with the David Kelly from the University of Manitoba who has enough well-cited mathematics papers to make a case for WP:PROF#C1, nor with any of several other less-notable mathematical Davids Kelly. I could find no publications in Google Scholar for David Kelly from Hampshire College. He appears to be notable only for HCSSiM (unless you count the speed limit thing), making this a case of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little weird that the MathSciNet page for the Manitoba David Kelly has a photograph that is pretty clearly the Hampshire College David Kelly. It's also weird that the MathGenealogy link in our article is dead. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MathGenealogy link used to work: https://web.archive.org/web/20180810091602/genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=105611

I suspect its removal is related to the fact that Kelly's web page https://www.hampshire.edu/academics/faculty/david-c-kelly says only that he has "an AB from Princeton, an SM from MIT, and an AM from Dartmouth", with nothing about an MIT PhD. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a BIO1E case, for the connection with HCSSiM. However, doesn't satisfy WP:PROF, WP:BIO or any other relevant notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: I am in favor of either a plain "delete" or "delete and redirect". The article Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics already mentions that HCSSiM was founded by David Kelly. There is no other info in the David Kelly article that is worth preserving or merging. Nsk92 (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics: coverage of Kelly as a person is woven pretty heavily into the coverage of HCSSiM (as shown by my comment at the other AfD) and I think some portions of this article may be appropriate to merge there. As a second choice I'd be ok with a redirect without merge. --JBL (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This looks unlikely to end in a keep (and I don't see enough notability for one). The main question appears to be to what extent it should be a redirect/merge. Arguing against the redirect is the fact that the David Kelly at Manitoba appears to pass our notability criteria, with several papers having over 100 citations in a low citation field. David Kelly (mathematician) would be a natural place for this article, note that Manitoba's David Kelly appears to rarely use his middle initial. I would suggest that if we end this in a redirect (possibly with some merging), then it would be best practice to Move, then redirect from David Kelly (mathematics educator) (or similar) to Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the complicated proposal from Russ Woodroofe.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to hold up the procedure. Redirection looks like a reasonable alternative to deletion to me, but I don't think the article title is a good reflection of the subject, and it looks like it could cause some mild later problems. If article history is preserved, then some limited merging could happen at any time after close of AfD. Pinging previous participants @JayBeeEll, David Eppstein, and Nsk92: in hopes of winding this down. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As I wrote above, I am strongly against preserving the article history. These kinds of redirects are all too easy to undo. There is nothing in the David Kelly article that is worth preserving. The Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics article already mentions that HCSSiM was founded by "David Kelly, a professor emeritus of mathematics at Hampshire College." That's quite sufficient. Delete and redirect. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Campbell (Ninja Warrior)

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

Non-notable obstacle course racer. Is a competitor on American Ninja Warrior, but has not done anything notable (like winning it all). Natg 19 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bull

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

Non-notable obstacle course racer. Had fleeting moments of fame for American Ninja Warrior, but overall non-notable. Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 19 July 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!} 22:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Paraskevas

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

A BLP with scant sourcing, currently only referenced to databases. On review of search results, I can't find any English-language sourcing, and a comprehensive Greek-language search reveals the following sources:

[7] 2019 article about his speculated transfer from APOEL to Doxa.
[8] [9] 2022 and 2023 articles about two separate ACL injuries (very unfortunate I must say).

Overall I just don't see a level of coverage in these sources that would meet the threshold of significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSCRIT. GGT (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. GGT (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:08, 22 July 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!} 22:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 Special Training Unit

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

The article is unsourced. I was unable to find any relevant sources. Charsaddian (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and South Africa. Skynxnex (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any reliable sources that provide any detail on this unit. I would also draw editors' attention to WP:MILUNIT which provides some general guidance for the notability of military units. This one does not appear to meet the suggestion of "Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations". My understanding is that it is a physical training unit. It could be covered in some detail in an article about the parent formation, which may have been a training establishment or directorate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be linked to Danie Craven, maybe some biographies of his life could be helpful sources. Park3r (talk) 02:02, 26 July 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!} 20:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya ibn Ummi Taweel

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

Unreferenced WP:QUOTEFARM from 2015; seems to fail WP:NBIO. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Islam. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search in Arabic does not show reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in support of the above reasoning. I did a light search and only found pages linking back to the Wikipedia article. MtBotany (talk) 17:08, 25 July 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 Marquess of Waterford. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Beresford, 9th Marquess of Waterford

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO due to a lack of in-depth secondary coverage from reliable sources. Marquesses are not inherently notable (also see AfD precedents), and this particular one never sat in the House of Lords, so WP:NPOL doesn't apply here either.

My personal source assessment follows:

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Patrick Freyne (2 May 2015). "Oh lord: next generation takes the keys to Waterford county". Irishtimes.com. Retrieved 30 March 2016.	~ WP:INTERVIEW			~ Partial
"Henry Nicholas de la Poer Beresford, 9th marquess of Waterford, * 1958". Geneall.net. Retrieved 30 March 2016.		WP:UGS		✘ No
"About". Le Poer Polo. 19 August 1987. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 30 March 2016.				✘ No
https://www.thephoenix.ie/article/earl-of-tyrones-tipple-richard-beresford/			seems to only have a short snippet about the subject of the article, since the article appears to focus on his son	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, too, could find nothing other than the Irish Times interview that amounted to significant coverage. I also searched for his Polo career under Henry Beresford but didn't find significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD to Marquess of Waterford. Ingratis (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~Seems a low profile geezer by all account.~~ Found a rather niche interview with him about insurance for hunting:https://www.theirishfield.ie/hunting-insurance-separating-fact-from-fiction-725065 The article states he is Chairman of the Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association. Here's note of his appointment https://www.theirishfield.ie/news-lord-waterford-appointed-imfha-chairman-674910 Reticent to vote delete and break the chain of articles for holders of this title — feels like I'm wielding an axe. Number of article page views indicates there is readership and interest. At least have a redirect to Marquess of Waterford. Rupples (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The sourcing is sufficient for coverage in a summary article about holders of the title. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:42, 26 July 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. WP:SNOW. Will tag for CSD G6. (non-admin closure) Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Mafia

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated immediately after the previous AfD resulted in a consensus to delete. I don't believe it's technically eligible for G4 as the prose has changed, but it's still the same subject with the same notability problems. – bradv 18:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only non-local coverage seems to be a bare mention in the SMH? Valereee (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing found in regular Gsearch, limiting it to .au websites [10], hardly anything else turns up. One review from the Perth area. Delete, and nothing has changed since the last AfD less then a month ago. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Valeree, only passing mention in SMH. Fails WP:AUD despite being a rewritten article. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is not sufficient for NCORP. And come on, keep the notability arguments out of mainspace; passages like After moving publications to the nation-wide newspaper the Sydney Morning Herald, he reviewed the venue again in 2022; re-evaluating the restaurant to a score of 15.5/20 in a ~970 word review are transparently non-encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge to Emma_Ferguson_and_Dan_Morris#No_Mafia Gjs238 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 12:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has moved on from consensus that sourcing fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability at the recent AfD HighKing⁺⁺ 19:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent further recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 25 July 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!} 18:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bandarawela Dharmasoka Central College

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

Only 2 paragraphs, a photo, & a link to google maps. All sources are unreliable. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Asia, and Sri Lanka. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this probably could have been handled, via PROD process. Fails WP:NSCHOOL / WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, lacks significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - school PRODs almost always get contested so I can understand why this has gone here. Searches in Sinhala don't seem to yield much. I get stuff like Lanka Information, although I'm not sure that's referring to the same school. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 22 July 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. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kanta Prasad

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

I'm not sure that an attempted suicide is really notable. On top of that I don't think they should they be forced to have a biography on Wikipedia due to one unfortunate incident. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event and, even more importantly, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 19 July 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!} 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Enrique Mallea

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

Article I created in 2008 before I understood that the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL needed to align with WP:GNG. Although this footballer played competitively in Chile and very briefly in Argentina and Switzerland, there is no WP:SIGCOV available in English-, German- or Spanish-language sources that indicates the GNG could be met. The only coverage available consists of database entries and routine match coverage like this. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few bits of coverage but most of it is just basic blog stuff which we can't use. I found an AS article that has some stuff about him (he's player #13) but it's barely more than a sentence. En Una Baldosa has a post about him but I'm not sure that this meets WP:RS standards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 24 July 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!} 16:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raboama Koloti

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

Earned one cap for the Lesotho national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found examples like this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a player of a nation’s national team. That is notability enough. Even if it’s a stub. Amaekuma (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability guideline does this relate to? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Amaekuma. Young player with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Playing on a national team" is not a valid AfD rationale, and it is tendentious for an editor who knows this after !voting in hundreds of sportsperson AfDs to continue using that argument over and over. No GNG sourcing has been identified, and I didn't come across anything beyond routine match recaps[11][12] and transactions[13] in Lesotho media. JoelleJay (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; I couldn't find anything except routine coverage or press releases from his employers/competition organizers. Jogurney (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Notable modern day athletes from english speaking countries, such as Koloti, generally have significant online sources. Koloti, who may or may not have an active career (no sources support that fact), seems to have only participated in one national team game so maybe it is not so surprising that there are no indications that he gained any notability for his football career. Alvaldi (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:07, 22 July 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!} 14:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Day

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

Non-notable women's soccer player at Academy of Art University and the Puerto Rico women's national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was what I found. JTtheOG (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Puerto Rico, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. W C M_email 07:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I believe I accepted this before the NSPORTS overhaul and at the time "plays for a national team" was a valid acceptance criteria. I do agree now, however, that there is insufficient coverage to keep the article. Primefac (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:07, 22 July 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!} 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Han Qianxi

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed SIGCOV Stvbastian (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and China. Stvbastian (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment torn on this nomination, WP:SIGCOV is a factor but appears to meet WP:GNG and lack of coverage in Western media for a notable Chinese Badminton player is not unexpected. Suspect this will never be more than a stub. W C M_email 07:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This BLP is a tricky decision, for the reasons mentioned by Wee Curry Monster. In the end, I'm mostly swayed by the achievements being for junior tournaments and occurring at least 3 years ago. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found Sohu but it doesn't really address Han Qianxi in sufficient depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. She was in an Uber Cup winning team but played no match. Her achievements are same as before when this article was deleted three years ago. zoglophie 13:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Rodrigues (businessperson)

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

Not meeting notability requirements, sourcing and the article here read like a puffy resume, with only lists of places worked and business accomplishments, which are rather routine. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Purely CV. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UtherSRG files WP:GNG. W C M_email 07:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet significance criteria LTTB (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage meeting WP:SIGCOV. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:22, 21 July 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 Piroshky Piroshky. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Sagan

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

Not meeting requirements; sourcing is simply announcements that she's running for office. Non-notable businessperson otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, appears promotional. W C M_email 07:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Piroshky Piroshky: A redirect to the bakery they own seems fair. Clearly fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is a well-known figure in Seattle amongst small business owners. Yesterday is tomorrow (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per TulsaPoliticsFan. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic

AfDs for this article:

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

I found no good sources from my search. Fails to be notable. All the included sources are minor passing mentions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As mentioned in the nomination, there isn't any in-depth coverage in any high quality sources that I could find. It should be noted that Sputnikmusic is sometimes used as a source for critic reviews, for example in this paper. Of course, that does not constitute SIGCOV, and it's more so a matter for WP:RSN or WP:NPPSG. There is an argument to be made that this Metacritic profile of Sputnikmusic is in-depth, but it's unclear who wrote or published it (WP:UGC), and it only provides data, not analysis – ergo, not sigcov. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE comes up empty on reliable independent sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Dugdale

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

Not meeting ACTOR, most are bit parts or one-offs. Sourcing is scant and mostly goes to social media sites. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She got major roles in major network shows (read the opening lead) Jaiquiero (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They say "major roles" but I couldn't find sourcing that supported that statement. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. No evidence of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows ..." or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions". Most of the shows listed in the lead do not even include her name as one of the stars, and the sourcing is very poor (IMDB and an Indian wikia). Much of the bio material is unsourced, and some of it is inappropriate (for example, why would we include the information that her brother is gay and when he married his partner?). Meters (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm French-Canadian and have no idea what a B2 francophone is either (as in the article). Seems to not help the notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Article was nominated less than 7 hrs after it was created, articles need some time for improvement. Not convinced WP:NACTOR is failed, since there are notable roles listed at IMDB. W C M_email 07:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No references to verify notability, fails WP:NACTOR. Mentioned notable roles but no references to support it. Mentioned the article is new, can be improved and for same can be moved to draft rather then deletion. DSN18 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster, an WP:ATD is to move the article could be moved to draftspace so that you could improve it, if you like? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another nothing article by an editor with a history of disruptive editing about another non-notable actress. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is only one source that points to her personal life. None of her films she has participated in were sourced. HarukaAmaranth (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs more citations for verification and notability.Naomijeans (talk) 21:10, 22 July 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 and with no input after the relist, no indication one is forthcoming as editors disagree on the main point being contested. Necro, I think AB's suggestion of a discussion (at VP?) on Policy is going to be easier than protracted split discussions. That will solidify current consensus on honors systems. Star Mississippi 01:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Björn Engwall

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Sweden. Kleuske (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unhelpful nomination, but Engwall's military career would appear not to contain any substantive claim to notability. The award of the Order of the Sword, a blue-linked award, gave pause for thought, but that award's article makes the perhaps salient point that it is "Awarded to officers, and originally intended as an award for bravery and particularly long or useful service, it eventually became a more or less obligatory award for military officers after a certain number of years in service." Obligatory award apart, there is no reason for notability - and no RS or independent coverage - and so he does, indeed, fail WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Commander 1st Class of the Order of the Sword clearly qualifies per WP:ANYBIO #1. It's the second highest grade of the order, probably equivalent to a knighthood in British terms given it comes with a breast star. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Necrothesp above. Although the lower ranks of this order were handed out quite frequently by the 1960s, the Commander of the 1st Class is another, much more exclusive matter. /FredrikT (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. On the WP:ANYBIO #1 argument I agree with Alexandermcnabb, 2nd highest tier of 2nd highest decoration doesn't satisfy "well-known and significant award or honor". Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find WP:GNG passing coverage. With regard to Order of the Sword, I'll just note that this happened almost immediately before the order was paused based on, among others, the following reasoning (deepl translation from sv:Ordensreformen):
[By 1960s and 1970s,] the number of appointments to the orders had gradually increased considerably. In 1971 there were 1,240 appointments to the orders, of which 900 were within the Order of the North Star, and the total number of order holders in 1973 was estimated at just over 24,000. This was very high in comparison with, for example, Denmark, where about 200 decorations were awarded annually, and Norway only about 60.[8] Large categories of citizens who were eligible for an order under the current system also declined to receive one. This was interpreted as meaning that the order system had lost its function of expressing appreciation of citizens' achievements and that there was no longer any basis for state involvement in order matters[9]. [..] It was therefore proposed that no Swedish citizens should no longer be awarded the royal orders, that the Order of the Sword and the Order of Vasa should be laid to rest, and that the Order of the Seraphim and the Order of the North Star should only be available to the royal family. The decision was confirmed and the system ended on January 1, 1975.
This kind of analysis, from the Swedish state itself, extremely discounts the awards for the purposes of WP:ANYBIO#1.-Ljleppan (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is very clear that the delete voters above have no understanding whatsoever of how European honours systems work and the differences between level of an order and grade within the order. The second highest grade of the second highest order is generally higher than the third highest grade of the highest order. It's the grade that's important, not the precedence of the order. The lower grades of the order (which are what were given out so freely in this case) are not notable, but grades at this level are. It's for this reason that editors without knowledge of the subject claim that even the lowest members of the Légion d'Honneur must be notable, as it is France's most prestigious order, and conversely that Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire can't be notable as it is Britain's eighth highest order. Both are utterly wrong. Knowledge of the subject is always helpful in assessing notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does rather come across as a bit snooty. I'm sure @Ljleppan could counter that as you aren't an expert in Finnish or Swedish language, culture or society that you aren't qualified to comment, either. They're undoubtedly bigger than that, which is nice, but it would be just as valid (or invalid) an argument. And I'm afraid that neither washes when we depend on the consensus of The Great Unwashed - few of us are subject matter experts, but we are all informed by guidelines set through a process of consensus and if that ain't perfect, well, it's going to just have to do. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if it does, but I've seen this particular argument too many times and it's irritating. As well as being completely wrong. Closers, who may well not have that knowledge either, need to be made aware when an argument is factually incorrect and take that into consideration rather than taking them at face value. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp I find your comments condescending. You continually push your own views of notability which other Users are perfectly entitled to disagree with. You don't get to tell others that they lack knowledge or are wrong on these issues. Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't make statements like: 2nd highest tier of 2nd highest decoration doesn't satisfy "well-known and significant award or honor". Which does, I'm afraid, show a lack of understanding, as I pointed out. I have no problem with being disagreed with (although you have shown in the past that you have a massive problem with it). I do have a problem with editors making claims that are patently based on incorrect assumptions, which do need to be pointed out. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't make statements like "It is very clear that the delete voters above have no understanding whatsoever of how European honours systems work" and "Closers, who may well not have that knowledge either, need to be made aware when an argument is factually incorrect ". As usual with military biographies, you are reading far more into WP:ANYBIO #1 than what is written there, but as you have shown in the past you have your own vision (and lists) of notability which you do have a "problem with being disagreed with". Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion to @Necrothesp - change the notability guidelines to clarify this issue for the future. That will save you personal vexation and ensure proper outcomes at other AfDs. Probably the best way to do this is to start with a conversation at WT:BIO, then, based on that, develop an RfC. I would also notify the appropriate Wikiprojects (whichever ones deal with honors) when you start the conversation on the talk page.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Commander 1st Class of the Order of the Sword clearly qualifies per WP:ANYBIO #1. And per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: what sources are you basing the per WP:GNG on? Ljleppan (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:37, 19 July 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. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Vaz (American investor)

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

Flowery sourcing (the first source calls him the "great investor"); all I can find is PR-ish items. Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was in the process of deleting this as G11 at the same time. Completely puffery, all sources were paid and known SEO sinks. The author lit up the blacklist log with a dozen other blackhat SEO links as well. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn, is already G11'ed. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 19 July 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!} 20:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huma Batool

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

Batool might not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (and for person particularly). It is important to demonstrate the subject's significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that are independent of the subject. From the article, it's hard to see if the subject meets the criteria for notability. BoraVoro (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Aviation, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - In my view, BBC Urdu, Daily Ausaf, and Startup Pakistan are 3 best sources to consider (per WP:Three). Insight 3 (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I'm up for changing that vote in a second if someone can come up with decent Urdu RSes. WP:BEFORE yielded the above mentioned three sources as the most likely candidates. However, the BBC piece is an interview, the Daily Ausaf likewise, so neither counts towards WP:GNG. The Startup Pakistan piece, if it's not advertorial, is pretty shameful journalism, "Ms. Huma Batool, a born leader and a dynamic personality... a woman who has a great passion for her profession, she is an inspiration not only for Pakistani women but across the globe. She is awarded numerous awards for her services. She is a writer, and a poetess, and has immense fondness for English, Persian and Punjabi mystic poets." we are told - which is all mildly emetic. However, she founded an airline and is the first Pakistani female so to have done. And so we could argue presumption of notability if it wasn't for the sheer lack of reliable, independent sources out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She received coverage in different news papers few of the references are as below:

^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

Comment: Google Translate version of the Urdu Wikipedia [14] article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate version of Insight 3's links above:

BBC, Daily Ausaf, Startup Pakistan

I'm unimpressed by the latter 2.

I still haven't found anything substantial but it may be WP:TOOSOON - the airline is just getting started.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.brecorder.com/news/40213447/labourers-doctors-paramedical-staff-oman-offers-job-opportunities
^ https://www.nation.com.pk/09-Dec-2022/fesco-bod-chairman-alveer-airways-chairperson-hold-meetings-in-oman
^ https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1075945-triumphs-of-women-in-education-showcased

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing notability with what's given above. TOOSOON probably. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of .hack characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ovan

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

Despite being sourced and well written. This article was mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like passing mentions from games reviews. It has zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. appears to be fancruft, more suited to a wikia site than here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I made this back such guideline wasn't used but I'm surprised it needed an AFD. Same goes for Atoli. Not sure if Haseo has enough articles where he is the primary subject as months algo O tried cleaning up his reception. Same with Kite. Tintor2 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, just nothing really there for the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Impresive scraping of mentions in passing, but fails WP:SIGCOV. It would be a shame to loose this - I recommend SOFTDELETE and merger of reception to the List of .hack characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A merge discussion would've been fine in this instance, but the character doesn't seem notable, and WP:SIGCOV doesn't appear to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:11, 23 July 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!} 14:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tabernacle (software)

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

Fails notability criteria of WP:ORG and WP:NSOFT. It's WP:TOOSOON Lordofhunter (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. Lordofhunter (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with heavy emphasis on WP:TOOSOON. Last1in (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMost sources I find are PR; one in the Mockchung Times, an unclear RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article seems to be about both the software and company, and while the software coverage is borderline based on perception of RS and SIGCOV, it's clear that NCORP is not met. —siro χ o 22:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viverse

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

Has been (re)created and redirected a view times with the rationale that it's a puff piece on a non-notable, passing fad – which I tend to agree with. Taking it here to see if there is consensus to keep it a redirect. – Joe (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been quite a bit of in-depth coverage in major publications like ZDNet, VentureBeat, and by Forbes staff writers since the last redirect. It has become notable at this point so is a keep even if it is a passing fad, as per WP:DEGRADE. Chagropango (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "A redirect might have been a viable option even 2 years ago, but considering that this platform is owned by HTC Corporation, which is striving to build something on the level of the Facebook's Meta, and has garnered media attention in recent months (Probably also in Chinese from the Taiwan media), I'm more inclined to retain and enhance the page." I’d rather ask the editors from Taiwan or those competent in Chinese to double check the media coverage in the manufacturer’s original language as well. --Onetimememorial (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. With >20 cites from across five different years, why is this even up for consideration? It's a perfectly valid article with a good structure and lots of room for improvement in future. Last1in (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HTC Vive. It seems to have made a splash in headlines, but contrary to what Last1in claims, there is not coverage across "five different years", with only one article being written in 2023 and the remainder being written in 2022. I'm unconvinced of any lasting notability. SWinxy (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced of lasting notability, either, but my precognition is acting up. As for sources, were you perhaps looking at retrieval date? Publish date shows five years. 2016: VentureBeat; 2019: VentureBeat; 2021: Frater, Patrick (Variety); 2022: Auganix, James Dargan (MVI), Ochanji Sam (VRTimes), others; and 2023: Grant, Rob (VRTimes), VentureBeat. I was unable to find an actual publication date on a dozen more of them. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2016 and 2019 VentureBeat articles make no mention of Viverse. One is on an app store and the other is on an app subscription package. SWinxy (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The platform is a big enough phenomenon that even indirectly related events have gotten the attention of the VR media: [15], [16], [17]. Deckkohl (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Frontier Design

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

Company making 'tiny homes'. "Best luxury tiny home builder" in The Spruce 2020 awards is the key claim to notability presented. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP - "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. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources..." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, United States of America, and Tennessee. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see table below, only a single source that meets WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but I'm honestly happy to see at least a single source. Note that the article needs a lot of NPOV improvement, too. —siro χ o 09:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
architectural digest	largely an interview with founder	?		✘ No
digital trends	[18]		this covers a specific product, with only a few words about the company	✘ No
BBC	company covered by interview with founder			✘ No
insider	heavily relies on interview		~ mostly about product not company	✘ No
the spruce	[19]		in-depth entry in a list, meets WP:CORPDEPTH	✔ Yes
business insider	relies heavily on interview with founder	~	~	✘ No
treehugger	[20]	?	couple sentences about company, mostly product review	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I can't find much more about this builder. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 19 July 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 as there was no consensus on a redirect target as an aTD Star Mississippi 01:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romil Chaudhary

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ACTORBIO and doesn't meet WP:GNG Monhiroe (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article is being removed This article is posted from a trusted source, please improve the article, don't delete it.

Thank you Anuj Choudhary Ror (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although he has very few credits, there are a few articles about him such as in India Today and India Express to meet the requirements of WP:GNG.Naomijeans (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May pass WP:GNG, few good notable references given. I feel the article can be improved and can to be moved to draft in worst case rather than deletion. DSN18 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear failure of WP:GNG, briefly a reality show contestant, no enduring record of work/impact as an actor or indeed for any other reason, so we don't pass WP:NACTOR, either. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Could perhaps redirect to the Big Boss show, but I don't think his impact was much. It says he's known for MasterMind in the infobox, with no further details given. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He played a minor role in the sitcom Kahaan Hum Kahaan Tum, and his presence in Big Boss did not establish him as a notable actor. This article should be deleted per WP:BIO1E. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 17:10, 25 July 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.

Great British Nuclear

The result was Nomination withdrawn.‎ Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Great British Nuclear is the trading name of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, which already has a page. I've proposed the BNFL page is moved to here, until then this article should probably be deleted. Find out more: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/great-british-nuclear Dreichh (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - page made into redirect whilst parallel move discussion. Dreichh (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC) continues on BNFL page[reply]

Redirect As creator, I wasn't aware of the tangled histories of Britain's nuclear projects when I created the page. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreichh: This should solve the issue (and allow the move discussion to continue). I suggest withdrawing (WP:WDAFD) this deletion request and just changing Great British Nuclear to a redirect for now. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, will do that for now. Dreichh (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse of Lierna

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

Content copied/translated, without attribution but apparently in good faith, from simple:The Lighthouse of Lierna and/or ru:Маяк Лиерны (озеро Комо), both of which were created by IP socks of globally-locked long-term hoax/nuisance editor Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson, one of whose principal characteristics is his obsession with the village on of Lierna and any- or everything connected to it.

No indication of encyclopaedic significance, nothing on Scholar ([21], [22], [23]), JSTOR ([24], [25], [26]) or Gbooks ([27], [28], [29]).

As is usual with this editor, nothing he writes can be trusted: the column is not a stele, as the Simple-wiki page says it is (and thus ours too); there is no book by Nino Salvaneschi [it] on Castiglioni listed in WorldCat]. The bronze bas-relief is apparently not connected in any way to the column and is not called "Il faro di Lierna"; an example of it was sold in 2019 as "Madonna col Bambino". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Italy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I patrolled this page and seeing it come from simple with a couple sources (which I tried to verify, one was easy, the other one seems way out of print including [30][31]), and also considering the presumptive translations from Italian, I clearly didn't look closely enough. I agree with nominator's assessment of the article and will take a closer investigation of articles from simple in the future.—siro χ o 12:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is out of print doesn't make it stop being reliable PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but if the originator of this article (not the creator here on en, to be clear) may have used the sources improperly, as the nom's investigation suggests, then reliability of the source doesn't imply verifiability of the information. —siro χ o 20:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to Siroxo for tracking down the Salvaneschi source. It's a twelve-page leaflet, apparently the catalogue of an exhibition of fountain sculptures; as such, it is improbable at best that this column (not a fountain or anything like one) is mentioned in it. Siroxo, were you able to confirm that the thing is mentioned in the 2015 Skira book? – I didn't manage to view any part of that. With Smithson, nothing can be taken in good faith, every detail needs to be independently verified (details do sometimes check out, and often do not). I'll take this opportunity to apologise (again) to Товболатов, who could not have been expected to know the background here, and thank her/him for the understanding shown below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not confirm the subject of the article was mentioned in the book, merely verified the existence of the sources. Which clearly wasn't enough. I'll be more cautious now that I have at least a sense of the banned editor's patterns. —siro χ o 10:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an article in a Russian project and decided to translate it. Didn't know it was a hoax. I had to check the source Delete.--Товболатов (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any mention of this work, and it is not listed in any of the sources on the article for the artist even though other works are named. I suspect this is a minor work without great import, even though the artist is notable. I did see that there is a museum of his works in Lierna, so he is associated with the place. Lamona (talk) 18:30, 22 July 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Marie Alix of Schaumburg-Lippe

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

Recreation of Marie Alix, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No reason given as to why this article should be deleted as opposed to a previous one which may have been quite different in content. Bermicourt (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are now two referenced German newspaper obituaries (I did not use a third that seemed to be derivative on one of those used) and a third reference, a comprehensive magazine obituary in French. Our access to German newspaper archives (and expertise to utilize them) is particularly bad, but I'm confident that there's been more reporting on her over her long life. Jahaza (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Updated Jahaza (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appear to be two previous deletion discussions related to this biography:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Alix, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein (August 2020)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein (October 2020)

Note that her husband Peter's biography has also been recreated since the previous discussions. pburka (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the page is kept, then Marie Alix, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein should probably be made a redirect to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:9301:D570:F008:CA5B:C628:CD1F (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per previous deletion discussion. Notability is not determined by marriage, it doesn't appear her husband is that notable anyway. W C M_email 07:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is also not determined by previous notability discussions. She's died in the interim, which led to the creation of additional RS. I would support redirecting her husband's article.Jahaza (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of obituaries doesn't establish notability, merely having a title doesn't establish notability, I see nothing in the article to establish notability. Hence, my comment is based upon WP:GNG and not the previous discussion, I don't think her husband was notable either. The only reason for mentioning it, given there is nothing per WP:GNG, was the previous discussion reached precisely the same conclusion. W C M_email 10:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having journalistic obituaries does establish notability. Notability is presumptively established under WP:BASIC when an individual has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and multiple journalistic obituaries (as opposed to purchased obituaries) will establish that. Jahaza (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG with the obituaries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If newspapers chose to print (unpaid) obituaries, then she must be notable per WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 22:06, 25 July 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 Bandra. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Theresa's Boys High School

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

Only primary sources provided. Despite the age of the school, no significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bandra, where the school is already mentioned. Joyous! Noise! 16:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per Joyous! and my failure to locate additional non-primary material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 19 July 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 John Bolton#IRGC murder plot. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Poursafi

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

No significant coverage to pass GNG. Only known for one event and being covered in the news for a brief period in 2022. YRhyre (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, and United States of America. YRhyre (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A pretty classic case of WP:BLP1E: John Bolton is the place for this. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Bolton#IRGC murder plot, where the subject is duly referenced. Per nom, subject fails WP:GNG and this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Sal2100 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Linnenbruegger

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

The references in the article either don't mention Linnenbruegger at all or in passing. A web search finds no WP:SIGCOV. There may be offline sources but it seems doubtful to me. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Germany, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are sources I can find due to the fact that I have access to some Ottawa-based newspapers through the Toronto city library archives. I just need some time to focus on the article. Shotgun pete talk 9:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - will AGF and assume the sources detailed below are as significant as claimed. Giant Snowman 17:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more reliable secondary sources and have expanded the size of the article. Shotgun pete (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe I addressed the issue by expanding the article and adding reliable secondary sources to make it more notable. I believe a least 4 of the news articles go into depth about the individual giving the person some significant coverage to start with. Shotgun pete (talk) 4:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per Shotgun Pete. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources added show significant coverage? Giant Snowman 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Henderson, Bruce (23 March 1978). "Maple Leaf rated highly". Ottawa Journal. p.29. - It goes more in-depth about the individual's coaching achievements and his team recruitment.

Henderson, Bruce (26 May 1978). "All systems are go for Ottawa-Carleton". Ottawa Journal. p.20. - Talks about his successful team recruitment

"Former Wizards coach returns". Ottawa Citizen. 11 September 2003. pp. B7. - an article that announces his hiring and a summary of his coaching achievements

"St. Anthony's soccer star shrugs off success". Ottawa Citizen. 4 September 1973. p. 31. - an article covering the individual and the impact he has made

Starnes, Richard (17 June 2011). "The secret deal is no longer secret". Ottawa Citizen. pp.B4. - briefly mentions his hiring and coaching experience

I don't have live links to these sources but I know offline sources are acceptable on wikipedia. Shotgun pete (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, See above, Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:33, 24 July 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. Star Mississippi 01:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanim Alsheikh

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

Fails WP:GNG, no RS sourcing to establish the notability of the subject (and I note no RS sourcing to establish the notability of either of the two academic institutions the subject is purportedly associated with). BEFORE shows a number of publications talking to the subject's associations with these institutions, all of which appear to be authored by one G. Al Sheikh. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Iraq. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have a fair amount of citations on Google scholar spanning medical, medical education, and public health work [32], suggesting WP:ACADEMIC.1. Additionally I would suppose "Founding Dean" holds up to WP:ACADEMIC.5/6 in the countries he's held that title in. —siro χ o 09:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although a borderline case but appears to pass SNG for Professor. Okoslavia (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not meet NPROF C5/6 (dean of a medical school is never enough), and citation numbers are very far from satisfying C1 in this field. JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:03, 19 July 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seydanil (Belarusian singer)

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

Soft deleted last month [33]. Still likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO/WP:GNG KH-1 (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Belarus. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 06:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian news portals are used. Wikipedia marks about the festival are indicated. Information taken from real sources from interviews. There are no newspapers on the Internet. They were on the air of Belarusian television, but they are not on the Internet. IVAN1203 (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the AfD of the previous article under his real name Daniil Rzhevsky, some evidence was offered of an attempted promotion. Nothing has changed now that he has the stage name Seydanil. His music is self-released and has not yet gained any reliable notice from the professional music media. Many of the sites referenced in the article, and mentioned by the commenter above, are either retail operations in which Seydanil is selling pictures to try to launch a modeling career, or typical social media-style sites that allow uploads of one's own work and softball introductory interviews. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is, the mention of the Ural night of music in Russia on your site does not matter? The agency is invited to magazines in America. Magazines also talk about the new video clip. IVAN1203 (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it myself? The artist does not own the label! IVAN1203 (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has done nothing on Wikipedia outside of the Seydanil article and this debate: [34]. For more experienced users and admins, I shouldn't have to explain that a music festival might be notable but that does not extend to every single person who ever appeared there, while any magazine can be paid to talk about a new video. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rave. you are talking nonsense now! IVAN1203 (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that the artist bought the magazines? And he is not embarrassed that everyone and most of the performers buy covers! Why don't you write to them? IVAN1203 (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I insist on leaving the article! IVAN1203 (talk) 22:16, 24 July 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. After two relists, keep has a numerical majority but weak arguments asserting that WP:NACTOR is met. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Rastogi

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

Minor roles in television except one somewhat main character. No non-trivial mentions in additional sources found to demonstrate notability. Idell (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Idell (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the article Shweta Rastogi as it is posted from reliable sources.. I have added many other sources as references that I could found. Please improve the article, don't delete it. 116.206.202.14 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider moving it to draft space? Chamaemelum (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. move it to the draftspave 116.206.202.14 (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has worked in many notable television serials. And have notable references for same. She had played a role of Radha in Ramanand Sagar's show Shri Krishna which is important and notable role. Also in her latest serial Baalveer, she is playing role of Baalveer's mother which is again a notable and important role. For me it passes WP:NACTOR. It can be improved but do not require deletion. DSN18 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why this article should be deleted, as she seems notable enough considering her work on the articles listed television serials, but there is definitely room for improvement. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 19 July 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. After two relists, editors remain divided on whether the sourcing quite meets WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SSSniperwolf

AfDs for this article:

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

Youtuber. Fails WP:GNG. No notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], etc. Clearly notable, literally has over 30000000 subsrcibers, many sources like in ongoing high profile career. Article needs improvement, to deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider adding independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Many of the sources you provided here are a bit lacking, try to find 2 or 3 of the best. See WP:GNG. Also note big numbers won't get a lot of traction here. —siro χ o 10:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are trivial mentions or in sources we don't consider notable. Sub numbers aren't really a marker of reliability here, as they can be bought. Unless she's had in independent auditing firm confirm her numbers, we can't use them. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary all subscribers on youtube are real people, you can pay for real people to watch your videos and subscribe, but either way they are real people. See Here PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article might be notable, but it doesn't provide the best sourcing in its current condition. Conyo14 (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - large amounts of internet points do not automatically make one notable. does not include reliable sources, either. DrowssapSMM (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly anything found in RS, most is PR stuff [44], this is about the most non-PR thing I can find [45]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprised this was even nominated, but I'm also surprised the WP:BEFORE searches don't make notability here crystal clear. Mentioned in a few books and a couple scholarly articles. Would like to do a better recent media search than the major search engines allow. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also surprised this was previously deleted. It's the inverse of famously not famous - not famously famous? SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide WP:THREE, as nothing I've found has really sufficed. As such, I'm leaning toward delete but haven't bolded a !vote yet. —siro χ o 22:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Azcentral and Sportkeeda articles Das osmnezz posted I think pass GNG, not all of those do but there's a couple in that mix I can't tell whether they do or not. There's a scholarly article as well but not familiar with that journal, along with other mentions. There are a few book mentions as well. As I said, I'm surprised it's not easy to find more - for instance she was at a Hollywood premiere but there's nothing but pictures of her from that premiere. SportingFlyer T·C 11:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that the "scholarly article" is a random bachelor's thesis. I don't speak Swedish, but the English version of its abstract is completely incoherent. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess AZcentral verifies subscriber counts and profession, but most of that article is a bit weak for BLP (routine house sales and household details and such). The consensus seems to be that Sportskeeda is unreliable. WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't suggest Bachelors theses as a reliable secondary source. Maybe just WP:TOOSOON. —siro χ o 12:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise Sportskeeda was user contributed. I'll once again be surprised this doesn't fit with our notability standards, probably because this is the Youtube personality I've actually heard of, but it's hard to find media which clearly passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Surprised there aren't sources out there to establish notability as this is one of the top game streamers on YouTube or Twitch (or both). I've deleted their article before speedy deletion but that was years ago and I'm suprised nothing has changed since then.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep I think we may have a case for WP:BASIC, but I made the below table and I am still not sure. I've included I think all the sources presented here and in the article. —siro χ o 08:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, will change if there's at least 2 (multiple) reliable sources found. Just having a high sub count is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Karnataka (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Prolific North	Secondary coverage, unsure about site, but credited author seems legitimate.	<--see	~ ~310 words, mostly about subject's earnings	~ Partial
Tubefilter	~ mostly interview, verifies and analyzes some statistics	~ industry pub that disclosed a sponsor for the story	excluding the interview we have some confirmed stats and minor analysis	~ Partial
Ana Ruiz Segarra, The University of Western Ontario	masters thesis	~ masters thesis	~ 33 words of coverage.	~ Partial
CFP: Celebrities of Gaming: The 5th Jyväskylä Autumn Seminar]			only published coverage is a name in list	✘ No
Forbes profile	mostly from subject		~	✘ No
Deadline			3 words of sigcov - minor award	✘ No
Hollywood reporter			minor award again	✘ No
eonline			minor award again	✘ No
GameRant		valnet property + pseudonymous author = no accountability		✘ No
Bachelor thesis		bachelor thesis	?	✘ No
AZCentral			~ mostly routine (real estate etc), verifies profession and some subscriber counts	~ Partial
sportskeeda	?	[46]		✘ No
Vogue	interview			✘ No
SVG	almost entirely attributed to subject, and seems to keep subject voice without quoting at times, does not seem to have done any further verification past a single interview with subject	?		✘ No
tuko	see comment below	see comment below	Is SIGCOV, (please take care, as much cannot be used for BLP)	✔ Yes
win.gg]	?	win.gg is tied to sports betting company		✘ No
Nicki Swift	seems to be secondary synthesis of other videos and interviews	~ Seems reliable for "gossip" type coverage and little more, we can't reliably source much more from it, esp due to BLP "We don't just report news, we editorialize it in a way that drives the conversation forward."		~ Partial
Dexerto (initially presented below)	no flags	~ No specific flags so not "red" for this article, but it's primarily "gossip" type stuff mostly unsuitable for BLP; while the author seems fine, the source is widely considered unreliable on wikipedia.[47][48]		~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment Thank you for the source assessment above, I've already !voted, but this still doesn't seem to show notability. A bunch of partials; if we had at least one solid source, I'd give it a pass for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another source https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/sssniperwolf-hits-back-at-accusations-of-stealing-youtube-video-ideas-2194214/

Independent: Yes, Reliable: Author is Reliable, Significant Coverage: Yes (372 Words) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, added in to table with further reliability analysis. I'm still at weak keep. I think I would need either 1 "fully green" source or a few more sources at the AZcentral/Prolific North level to be confident in a keep !vote. —siro χ o 21:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo: I have evaluated Who is Sssniperwolf? 5 quick facts about the YouTube star. Tuko is an independent news source from Kenya. It seems about on par with The Guardian. Upon reading the article, I cannot tell if this is based off a subject interview. To me it just looks like a reporter's intuition to get details from various sources. Conyo14 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reviewing, I lean towards agreeing with your analysis of the source. I've updated the table to reflect it. (Caveat to any future editors is that, unfortunately, much of that article probably cannot be used for BLP). It still helps to demonstrate WP:BASIC] —siro χ o 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, largely per Siroxo's analysis above. I would quibble with some of the yellow coding, as I don't see how e.g. the AZcentral article falls short of the SIGCOV requirement that it address[] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. But in any event I think we have sufficient coverage to meet NBASIC's threshold of having received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, especially considering that [i]f the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. -- Visviva (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think of partials of halves, 2 partials equaling a whole green. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 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!} 06:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in the Seafort Saga

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

Pure plot summary referenced to the works of fiction. Fails WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. We don't even have list of characters in the Seafort Saga. I suggest delete or merge to Seafort_Saga#Characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough reception or analysis to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Akin to what I said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Bloom County, maybe a move to List of Seafort Saga characters or something is in order? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brainulator9 Right now we have no sources suggesting that would pass NLIST/GNG either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this is not passing WP:SIGCOV. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Task Force on North America

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

Non-notable task force, one of hundreds such groups that think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations empanel each year. This one was not notable, does not have WP:SIGCOV, and the only sources per a WP:BEFORE check are reposting of the task force report and conspiracy theory website. Longhornsg (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Economics, Canada, Mexico, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North American Forum

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

Not notable annual meeting that met a couple times never generated WP:SIGCOV to warrant WP:GNG, especially WP:ORG. If not delete, merge into University of California, San Diego, which took on the now-defunct role of meeting organizer, per this. Longhornsg (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Economics, Canada, Mexico, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Americas Energy and Climate Symposium

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

Non-notable international forum that was held once after a major summit, then garnered no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 19 July 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 Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy O. Johnson

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

Subject is not independently notable as a film maker or business person, perhaps something reflected in the extreme brevity of this biography. No RS coverage presented nor found with WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Film, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, where he gets a brief mention and should perhaps get a little more. Otherwise probably delete. I note that he often is referred to by the supremely un-Googleable name "Tim Johnson", so there could be sources out there but the material in the article is not promising. -- Visviva (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanchi (Muslim)

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

This article fails WP:GNG. Has been unsourced for long. Should be deleted and content, if anything appears useful, should be moved to Ghanchi. Admantine123 (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. Admantine123 (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After I reverted it to last best version, i realised that it holds some importance to be included in Wikipedia. I want to withdraw this nomination. Tagging admin Novem Linguae.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please bold your !vote of nom withdrawn PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn: It was a two line article when i nominated it for delition. But, when i went through its past. The older version when it was just created, i found it in good state then. Actually, many articles like this were disrupted over the time by vandals. Hence, I don't think delition is required.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 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!} 05:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swoopna Suman (singer)

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

fails in WP:SINGER nd no have secondery reliable sources Worldiswide (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It passes WP:GNG and have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources like online khabar, kantipurpost, ekantipur etc. Fade258 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and move to Swoopna Suman without (singer) if possible, since there isn't any other article which exist with that name.Krishna Dahal (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before some users has created witout references repeatetly so administrator has protected it for creation.Thank you. Manalbare (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Dahal and Manalbare, Thank you for reaching it out. Once this discussion is closed then I or you should request this at requested move for moving this page as only administrator have access to move this page to that page because of protection. Fade258 (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fade258, Thank you. I requested many time for unprotection but no any response from administrators. Manalbare (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manalbare, Where do you request? Personally or in requested move. Would you tell me? Fade258 (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fade258,I requested in talk page not in requested move. Manalbare (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, We have to wait until this discussion to be closed. Fade258 (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the original title is protected from creation, I'm pretty hesitant here. While the creator is already blocked, I will also note that ducking around create protection with unneeded disambiguation, spelling variations, and the like, is grounds for a block from editing. Specific analysis of the sources used here would be very helpful, especially with the article having been created by a blocked sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is created by blocked sock, but also it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and passes WP:GNG.Thnk you.

ICantAct (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have 11 edits. How do you know about sockpuppets, WP:GNG and this AFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comments from

Confirmed sock. --Yamla (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: see previous relist comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by WP:SINGER.2 for "Je Chhau Timi" seeming to be atop Nepal's music charts, but I am not 100% sure I have the right data. As for BIO, we haven't quite hit it. I'm seeing mostly interviews and routine coverage, but I'm looking via Google translate so I could be missing something. —siro χ o 04:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Visakhapatnam

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

Fails WP:NLIST. The entire list is non notable entries and is poorly sourced with only 2 sources. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This one does not have any coverage in English, so as far as I can tell and does not meet NLIST. My Telugu is nonexistant though, so I'm not confident —siro χ o 09:43, 19 July 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. A bit surprised with this consensus as we have typically deleted these articles in other AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Hyderabad

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Not one of the list entries is notable and the article is largely unsourced except for the top 2 entries of the list. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet NLIST, with coverage of the collection of tall buildings in this city existing, eg [49][50]. Note that NLIST says The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.. The current article does, however, need some more sources. —siro χ o 09:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists of the tallest buildings in major cities are certainly notable per WP:NLIST. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Necrothesp.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Junkbot

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

6 of the 9 provided sources are from Blocks Magazine, a magazine for Lego fans. A search in gnews yields 2 hits. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game has a dearth of independent, reliable sources that limits its notability. I have sadly not found any additional sources online or from the Internet Archive. As a comment, whilst this problem is not particular to legacy Flash games, they do seem to often receive little online coverage due to their type and medium of publication. It's a shame greater attention wasn't directed to them. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely agree with Blocks Magazine being used unreliably. There are no other sources I could find. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 15:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 26 July 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. After being relisted twice there is no consensus to delete. I don't see any value in relisting a third time. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irène Souka

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

Not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. WP:POLITICIAN does not apply as Souka's position was not one of a politician in the strict sense, but even if it did, it's explicitly a secondary criterion. Souka is occasionally mentioned in passing by Politico (see this collection of articles). None of those mentions constitute the significant coverage required to establish notability. Of the sources currently in the article, only source 1 is significant coverage. It's a good source in terms of establishing notability, but it's just one. Source 2 doesn't even mention her. This is not the coverage in multiple sources required to establish notability. Although Souka was every now and then noted in passing, she only received individual press attention during one event (note WP:BIO1E), and only from one news outlet. Results from WP:BEFORE corroborate this picture of an individual noted in passing but never in covered in detail. See, for example, 1, 2, 3. There was also this article, but this is not a reliable source (cf. WP:DAILYEXPRESS). Actualcpscm (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greece. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY. Notable as one of the few female directors-general in the European Commission, which means she is discussed in multiple academic publications, such as [51] and [52], in addition to the Politico coverage (multiple in-depth articles demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time) and New York Times (mention) with regard to her role in the high-profile Selmayr affair and two years later, the drama around her retirement. Note that WP:BASIC specifies that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and thanks to multiple controversies, this bio of a European civil servant manages to get over the line based on English sources; additional sources may be available in Greek, French, and with variations in the spelling of her name (e.g. Eirini Souka). Cielquiparle (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Meets basic notability criteria for politicians, especially as the director general of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security. Batmanthe8th (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the best of my knowledge, it's not clearly established that DGs of the EC are inherently notable. Discussion in academic publications is, as far as I could tell, in passing and not significant coverage. Again, discussion of her with regards to the Selmayr controversy is in passing. I'd also like to note that publications from the EC and its press releases are not appropriate for establishing notability, since the EC was her employer and thus not an independent source. I agree that the article has been improved significantly since nomination, but the issue I originally highlighted remains: She is discussed in-depth only in one publication and otherwise mentioned in passing. Yes, multiple sources can be combined to establish notability, but I just don't see the threshold of WP:GNG being met here. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fundamentally disagree with your characterisation of what constitutes "in passing" coverage. Notable people do notable things, and WP:BASIC fully allows us to count coverage toward notability even when the PERSON isn't the main focus of the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BASIC (footnote 7): Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. Discussion in detail goes beyond the mentions of Souka that I have described as "in passing". Actualcpscm (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is very little discussion about the amount of biographical source material available about this particular individual. Specific discussion about this would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Seraphimblade. It is uncontroversial that Irène Souka has multiple in-depth articles covering various aspects of her tenure as Director General in Politico, offering WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time, most notably "Don't cry for Commission's HR chief" (2020 article completely focused on Irene Souka) and the 2016 "Brussels is for lovers: These influential people have formed their own European Unions", which gives Irene Souka and her husband top billing as an EU "power couple" (they were two Director Generals who were married, which was unusual); in addition, there is coverage about the "bombshell email" Souka sent to thousands of people in her department a few days before retiring. To demonstrate notability, however, we need to show that other publications have also covered Souka – and I would argue that the academic publication Pittsburgh Papers on the European Union, actually does discuss the impact of the HR policy reforms she implemented as DG in detail and is substantively more than just a "passing mention" – in fact, it's exactly the type of reference we would hope to see about a high-level policymaker (asking what impact did they actually have) – and WP:BASIC allows us to stitch together content from multiple sources. (And as a side note, while I'm inclined to discount (for purposes of establishing notability) Jean Quatremer's analysis as an investigative journalist about Souka's role in the Selmayr affair, which he published in publications such as 'The Spectator and Libération.fr, the fact that The New York Times largely validated his version of events (and mentioned Souka in that context) is definitely significant.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The academic publication you refer to mentions Souka by name once. It does provide an in-depth analysis of HR policy, some of which was hers, but this is a far cry from an in-depth discussion of Souka. (Not that this changes things much, but note that the policies discussed in that section are also not attributed to Souka alone, but to her and Maroš Šefčovič together.)

Souka's role in the Selmary affair is at most secondary, at least according to the sources you mention. Quatremer's analysis calls Souka "an essential cog in the appointment of the Secretary General" (Google's translation is better than my own would be) in the only sentence that could be construed as more than a passing mention. This is hardly in-depth analysis of her or her role in the affair. I would even argue that the use of the term "rouage" here strongly implies a passively bureaucratic role rather than an active one, and this analysis is only provided to illustrate Selmayr's loyalty. The text mentions her twice by name elswehere; first a quote from a "Eurocrat" and then in a list of people who attended a critical meeting. The NYT article does not further elaborate on Souka or her involvement.

Looking at all this coverage of the Selmayr affair, what might be appropriate would be a separate article for that event, since Selmayr himself is also notable independently of the appointment affair. Anything relevant from the Souka article could be merged into that. What do you think @Cielquiparle? Actualcpscm (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Actualcpscm We've both now exceeded two comments each, so I think we should step aside per WP:BLUDGEON and not flood this discussion with walls of text that discourage further participation, or waste time. (There is more important work elsewhere in the encyclopedia.) We can agree to disagree and let other people make up their own minds. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY - the article includes substantial biographical coverage of this particular individual's 40-year career, and their education, which are relevant to their notability, and their personal life is also well-sourced. Beccaynr (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As of now, I see only two possible closures, Keep or No consensus as there is currently no support for Deletion of this article other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from my view, when the subject is noted in an academic analysis (p. 68, with some biographical and career detail) about women's positional leadership, this is not a passing mention, and instead highlights her with substantial secondary context. I also think coverage of her HR work is coverage about her, similar to other BLP subjects with careers - this issue is sometimes discussed at AfD (e.g. Dawn Prince-Hughes AfD); and when she is described as e.g. "an essential cog," this seems to be further secondary support for her notability, in addition to what appears to be far more than passing-mention or trivial coverage of her in Politico over time: 2009 (noting the start of her EC tenure and an incident described as "a baptism of fire"), 2016 (includes coverage of her as part of the "highest echelon of Commission officialdom" and one of "several of Brussels’ most notable political power couples"), 2020 (in-depth reporting on her career). Beccaynr (talk) 19:44, 21 July 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!} 01:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lee (actor)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. The sources are all tabloid garbage. I looked for better ones and found nothing useful. gnu 57 01:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sexuality and gender, and Ireland. gnu 57 01:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pornography.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 12:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is a boxer with the same name, with more coverage. Otherwise, this person has appeared on a talk show with Hugh Jackman, that's all there is for sourcing. What's used in the article for sourcing is non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 19 July 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!} 06:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper's (bakery)

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

Fails WP:ORG, No indication of notability. PARVAGE ^talk! 06:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Bangladesh. PARVAGE ^talk! 06:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the sourcing on this one is a little patchy - but Bangladesh's Daily Star is pretty much it for English language media there and the rather purple tone of its journalism is about the standard. The nominator clearly has faced many CIR issues, including a current indefinite block, so there's that, too. And yet a 50-odd-branch chain of bakeries employing 500 people in Bangladesh would be analogous to something like Gregg's in the UK. So I'm going to IAR a little and propose this (also a mildly charming story) is kept. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any non-English coverage which would put this one beyond a reasonable doubt? SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more source, SportingFlyer, and sort of wish I hadn't (it was the death notice for Sufia Cooper)... Came up a blank with my Google Translate attempts at Bengali... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice given situation with nominator. —siro χ o 10:33, 24 July 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!} 20:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Born Without Bones

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

Tagged for notability since May, no notability presented (ie: no significant coverage in RS) in article and none on WP:BEFORE. No awards, no chart listing/placements. Search actually gives you more articles about people and pets born without bones... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. The usual spate of WP:ROUTINE coverage and blogposts. (At least these days we're spared Myspace pages.) Ravenswing 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage in SPIN should be enough to keep this one. It is a major music magazine. In addition there is album review in Distorted Sound Magazine.Hkkingg (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews of a subject cannot be used to bolster that subject's notability. Nor is notability inherited; a review of an album contributes nothing to the notability of those involved in its production. Ravenswing 15:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music reviews by independent reliable sources contribute directly to the notability of the band that composed and released the album in the same way that book reviews contribute to the notability of the writer. Also most reviews contain some biographical information as is the case here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minorly notable band, represented by a notable label. This kind of band is not uncommon on Wikipedia and, as an inclusionist, I see no reason why it should be removed. PickleG13 (talk)
Keep The article has independent sources with significant coverage on the band. WP:ROUTINE applies notability for events. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band appears to have released at least 2 albums on Pure Noise Records (Dancer, and an official reissue of Baby). WP:NBAND.5 says a band may be notable if it Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). This is the case for Pure Noise Records. —siro χ o 02:00, 19 July 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!} 00:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen van Wetten

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

Van Wetten made five Eredivisie and three Eerste Divisie appearances. A web search finds two short articles in [53] and [54] but no WP:SIGCOV. There may be offline sources but it seems doubtful to me. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a three-year professional, including in the Dutch premier league, offline sources are anything but unlikely. In fact, it is EXTREMELY unlikely these wouldn't exist. This AfD is part of a mass nomination of Dutch footballers, who have played in a period for which the online newspaper articles are no longer available, while these are not yet included in the national newspaper archive, Delpher. I'm not going to bother with the others that are oneliners and contribute little to WP. gidonb (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found several sources in a regional archive so this easily passes the WP:GNG even with what is now available online.[55][56][57][[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]. gidonb (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not sure if Sigcov is meeting here. Okoslavia (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not sure, why are you !voting? Dorsetonian (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dorsetonian. Okoslavia (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gidonb. Govvy (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:13, 23 July 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!} 00:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aru (restaurant)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, only references are food reviews. WWGB (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. WWGB (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Solely reviews isn't necessarily a problem when the subject is a restaurant; solely local reviews is what IMO we want to avoid. The Herald Sun is behind a paywall for me, but I'll AGF that at least one of the two is local sigcov, so that's one. The Age is sigcov, again local, definitely independent and reliable, so that's two. The Gourmet Traveller piece represents sigcov outside the local area. Unless there's some reason to believe GT is not rs/not independent, I think that gets it over the hump. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS, we need a RS that "describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products". I think at least one of these (the Age) technically meets that guideline so I am reluctantly a keep. But I personally don't see why Wikipedia needs an article on every restaurant that has ever had a professional food critic come through the doors, so I sympathize with the urge to delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage outside of geographic area where is it located. Needs more than a couple of food reviews and foodie based sources to give it notability. Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:AUD part of WP:NCORP, and potentially WP:NOTTRAVEL. SportingFlyer T·C 20:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Ajf773. Needs more and wider coverage than a few food reviews. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not cut and dried, but suggest that The Age and Herald Sun do not constitute regional coverage when considering the review's intended audience, and therefore fails WP:AUD. While GT is not local it is an inclusive publication, therefore Aru’s presence does not necessarily indicate notability. Beyond that, I don’t accept that a food review goes beyond a 'trivial' mention as per WP:SIRS. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinifex&Sand, what's an inclusive publication? Valereee (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An 'inclusive' publication is one in which inclusion is not based on merit or noteworthiness, but rather a desire to include all relevent entities, in this case, restaurants. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- source analysis:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Age			✔ Yes
Herald Sun	Looks fishy, some RSN discussion.	? Paywalled	✘ No
Gourmet traveller	?		? Unknown
Overall conclusions	~		~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19:, why was this relisted? Consensus seems clear. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Age decidedly passes WP:AUD as a paper of international interest. The review passes WP:PRODUCTREV. I found the Sydney Morning Herald review on ProQuest and it seems to pass WP:PRODUCTREV as well. Seems to be at least regional AUD if this source is publishing a review for a Melbourne restaurant. The source seems to be ok for attributed opinions though probably not for BLP, politics, and such. Note that I don't consider the Gourmet Traveller review to be independent as it relies too heavily on the chef.

I personally don't see why Wikipedia needs an article on every restaurant with 2 reviews in national papers, but the third pillar is there for a good reason, and I don't see any clear exclusionary criteria. —siro χ o 04:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the Age a paper of international interest. It is primarily a paper on Melbourne with some national and international coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar I guess I mean it's a paper of record and as such, many non-Australians have actually heard of it. —siro χ o 07:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Age is not in the class of New York Times. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if NCORP is meeting here. Okoslavia (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. The reviews these days are automatic, more clickbait than anything else, to fill the culture section. It fails WP:SIRS at best There is not genuine international coverage here. scope_creep^Talk 10:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with Spinifex re: WP:AUD. The coverage does not demonstrate the restaurant has received interest outside of its home city. JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 25 July 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!} 00:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hedras Ramos

I don't think that this article meets the notability criteria in the guidelines about notability for musicians. He doesn't have significant coverage. Johnmarrys talk 15:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Guatemala. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I found the below sources that are not included in the article:

https://guatemaltecosilustres.com/archivo/artistica/hedras-ramos-3/

https://mundochapin.com/2018/04/hedras-ramos-y-su-pasion-por-la-guitarra/59649/amp/

https://www.cortguitars.com/cortBBS/board.php?bo_table=Artists&wr_id=165

https://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/llevo-dentro-responsabilidad_0_551344886-html/

https://www.perspectiva.gt/uncategorized/super-cola-reconoce-y-apoya-el-talento-de-hedras-ramos/

I'll try to update the article once I'm able to edit from my computer (my residential IP is currently blocked and working on articles from the phone is rather complicated). –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. I think we have WP:BASIC but the language difference makes it hard to be 100% sure. The text of one of the above user's sources (perspectiva) seems independent of the subject , it's about a corporate sponsorshpi thing, but I do not think the article is sponsored. I found some non-interview with a byline from Siglo Veintiuno on ProQuest about a collaboration with Christopher Lee. There's several shorter non-trivial mentions as well that may contribute to BASIC, eg [66] and a similar note in Telegraph.co.ok via ProQuest. —siro χ o 00:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable enough in his community, which this page caters for. Amaekuma (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Taument

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

Taument made 22 appearances in one Eredivisie season and no further professional appearances. A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV. His brother Gaston is a notable footballer. There may be offline sources but it seems doubtful to me. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.brecorder.com/news/40213447/labourers-doctors-paramedical-staff-oman-offers-job-opportunities

[2] ttps://www.nation.com.pk/09-Dec-2022/fesco-bod-chairman-alveer-airways-chairperson-hold-meetings-in-oman

[3] ttps://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1075945-triumphs-of-women-in-education-showcased

[1]

[2]

[3]