Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 09	February 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. There is consensus that the fr-wiki article provides references adequate to meet en-wiki notability standards. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lapointe[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Canada. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are multiple people by the same name, and they barely come up. I cannot find anything in-depth and independent from the subject. Aintabli (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The French version of this article is extensively sourced. See fr:Christian Lapointe Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I originally accidently typed delete instead of keep - which I didn't actually think was possible! I've struck this vote and made it clear below. Sorry for the confusion everyone! Nfitz (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but restored per Nfitz's request on my talk page as they meant to !vote "keep" above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The French version of this article is extensively sourced. See fr:Christian Lapointe. Nfitz (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two Wikipedia article entries on him with the fr WP being the most developed. There is a mix of journal, newspapers and magazines sources with reviews which seem valid, which makes him notable. I don't mind adding the dude to my todo list, get it done sometime this year. Its only a couple days work. We can get rid of notability tag to get it off the CAT:NN list. scope_creep^Talk 15:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz and scope_creep. The article appears to have previously not been linked with the French Wikipedia version. I have linked the articles. Aintabli (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is demonstrated at the French Wikipedia article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, the French version of this article is extensively sourced. See fr:Christian Lapointe. I have quickly added three secondary sources, although they are all pointing to French language theatre news articles Avignonesi (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until the en:WP article meets en:WP standards of notability. If the fr:WP article cites ample sources, then someone (with better French than me) can use them in the en:WP article. Maproom (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't using deletion as cleanup violate policy? This isn't a newly created article, nor is there a question that it can be improved (as per the second language example). Nfitz (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does violate policy. The subject passes WP:N. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blackrock, Washington[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable location. I can find several passing mentions to a "Blackrock district" or "Blackrock lands" in local press, mostly from the 1900s and 1910s, nothing more recent than 1939. But all of these are trivial mentions about the daily happenings of some John Doe "of Blackrock district" as rural newspapers often used to publish. This does not ever seem to have been a "community", though, and no other information was found; the coordinates locate to empty grasslands, with a small "Black Rock Cemetery" nearby. This must have been a place significant to some people, but we have no record of it and therefore can't have an article; fails WP:GEOLAND because it wasn't legally-recognized and fails WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of the farming districts. There is one single passing mention of it as a town. Here:https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-blackrock-town/140746918/. All other mentions either don't specify what it is, or they are "Blackrock District", "Blackrock Valley" and a few other similar descriptions. These are the districts in 1909 https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-seattleaypeyakimacou/79192547/ see the top right. This is example of how it is otherwise referred to. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-farming-districts/140747823/ There is not enough RS to write an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.folsom (talk • contribs) 2024-02-11T21:52:48 (UTC)
I came at it from the other direction and tried to find the Blackrock Creek documented. I couldn't even get contemporary documentation for it in Yakima County. The Washington State Geologist only recorded a Blackrock Creek in a completely different county. Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Someone at GNIS liked that place names book, because here we have another example where it is the source. A very early topo shows "Black Rock" as a label somewhat north of the cemetery, but these early maps don't show buildings so it's impossible to figure what was really there. Later the GNIS people assumed that the cemetery was in town, which is not usually the case in these western rural areas. The topos also record the area as "Black Rock Valley", btw. Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Victoria first-class cricketers. ✗plicit 23:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Prescott[edit]

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

Shaun Prescott

Stub article by User:Lugnuts that does not satisfy sports notability in general or cricket notability in particular. The only reference is a database entry. The cricket notability guideline states that significant coverage may exist for individuals who have played first-class cricket at the highest domestic levels, but should not be presumed (and is not present).

Redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers, as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG, although there is some coverage of the subject, however redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farron, Washington[edit]

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

Another non-notable railroad waypoint being falsely called a community; no information found. Reference 4 is the only mention of Farron that could be found anywhere, and its statement "the town never grew large enough for a post office" is boilerplate text that the NPRRHS inserted in many entries on minor railroad stations. Coordinates locate to empty farmland today. Complete failure of WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. PROD was declined on the basis of geographic nominations being controversial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the sources I've seen indicate this was a rail station only. Google Books turns up a number of atlases listing it as a rail station with a population of X, indicating a rail site only. The 1959 Yakima County Plat Map shows Farron was a rail site without any street grid or even a subdivided area. There are no population figures for Farron in the 1940, 1910, 1900, or 1920 census. There's no mention of Farron in county histories. There are a few mentions in books of how many bushels of crops were shipped from the Farron station. No post office, school, church, or cemetery, that I can find. A redirect to Harrah, Washington, one mile to the west, isn't even merited, IMO. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What an embarrassing prod removal. There is no basis whatsover that geographic places require AFD to be deleted, and this user should show up here with more legitimate reasoning or not do that again absent consensus for a blanket position. There's so much junk geographic articles that more of these need to deleted by prod rather than clogging up AFD. Blatantly false article made by the same person who brought us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington. Reywas92^Talk 21:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of editors taking advantage of the fact that you don't have to have a reason at all to remove a prod. James.folsom (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find this https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-sun-news-beets-at-farron/140749787/. Implies train station.James.folsom (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's obviously a rail point with so sign there there ever was a town there. Note that the coordinates in the article were incorrect. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashue, Washington[edit]

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

PROD was declined on the basis of geographic nominations being controversial. But this is just a non-notable railroad point. The sources cited are insufficient for notability; the only one with any information is reference 4, which plainly states this was a "station". The 1950 USGS topo map shows Ashue as a siding with a couple of buildings in the surrounding area, but no "town": [1]. Several mentions of an Ashue Grange can be found in local newspapers, but all these mentions are passing, and grange halls were usually just meeting halls for local farms, not anything connected to a formal "community". Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can find regarding whether people reside there is this: [2], and appears in Native American Placenames of the United States, albeit briefly. It's too bad there's not a "list of unincorporated communities in Yakima County" article... SportingFlyer T·C 11:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a siding, these are the coords for the grange hall in Ashue district. Some kind of farming district. There has never been anything else there. The local paper has ~50 passing mentions. Here are the key ones.https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-sun-news-ashue-grange-location/140741227/ and https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-sun-news-asue-district/140740986/. There would never be enough RS for an article.James.folsom (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anybody wants to put a list of farming districts in the county article, let me know and I see if I can find them.James.folsom (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Actually it is still a siding, serving an LPG distributor and maybe fertilizer? Anyway, again, need some evidence of a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashue Road runs through an agricultural area west of Wapato, Washington for about 11 miles and has several farms and houses. Nothing looks like it would amount to a community though. James.folsom has found Ashue farming district and SportingFlyer has found Ashue the name of a local 'service center'. This source states it was a railroad station from 1912.[3]. Ashue is also the name of a soil.[4]. To describe Ashue as an unincorporated community looks to be unfounded. As Ashue relates to different things, I don't see a relevant redirect. Rupples (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely nothing now, the question is whether it was ever anything, and I think we've got at least some evidence to that affect. Enough? Not necessarily, but am writing this here in case anyone wants to re-create this with more research than just a GNIS record. SportingFlyer T·C 09:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birchfield, Washington[edit]

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

PROD was contested on the grounds that geographic nominations are usually controversial. I don't think there's anything controversial in saying this is a non-notable and not generally recognized location. Zero mentions could be found in local press or any books; only reference 4 has any information at all, which is basically copy-pasted into the article. Birchfield does show up on the 1936 Yakima East USGS topo map: [5], as an intersection near the tracks with a couple of buildings. There is now a Birchfield Road through the area; every hit I got for Birchfield was for the road, not any "community". Fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of the references is just left over from the hasty copy of Ashue.James.folsom (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate not knowing what it was, but there is not a trace of it's existence.James.folsom (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Birchfield, Yethonat, Farron, Holt, Moxee, and Gleed were freight stations on the Northern Pacific Railway. Compare Farron, Washington (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks Uncle G. I couldn't figure out what Yethonat was either. It had zero mentions in the paper. So I prodded it. James.folsom (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete The oldest topo I found lists this as "Birchfield Sta" and I was able to get to the station listing page via Wayback, where it claims it to be a town but gives no justification for that statement. Certainly the oldest aerial I found doesn't support this. Mangoe (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skobelevka[edit]

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

There is no such place in official sources. It has also been deleted from Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Redivy (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete More worthless mass-produced junk from User:Carlossuarez46. Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:G3, WP:HOAX. Aintabli (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It has no official source and it was deleted from Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Also in my opinion, there is lack of significance. Zohrab javad (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destani Wolf[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a singer, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC criteria. The strongest attempt at a notability claim here is that she's been a contributor to Grammy-nominated albums -- but NMUSIC #8 requires the subject to have personally been singled out as an award nominee in her own name for her own contributions, and simply having appeared as a guest musician on an album that somebody else got a Grammy nomination for doesn't count.
But nothing else here meets any NMUSIC criteria at all, and the referencing is depending far too heavily on bad primary and/or unreliable sources that aren't support for notability -- Bandcamp, blogs, IMDB, etc. -- while the only reliable sources in the bunch are a couple of hits of in the hyperlocal community media of her own hometown (but just having a couple of hits of "local person does stuff" coverage in her own hometown media isn't enough to get her over the bar all by itself if it's the best sourcing she has), a PopMatters album review that briefly mentions Destani Wolf's name without being about her in any non-trivial sense, and a Pitchfork article that fails to name Destani Wolf at all, serving only as tangential verification of one of the Grammy nominations that she wasn't actually the recipient of.
Again: she can't claim "notable because Grammy", because she wasn't personally named as the recipient of any Grammy nominations in her own name, and was merely a contributor to albums that other people got Grammy nominations for, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON for now. I could only find passing mentions of her in reliable secondary sources, doesn't yet meet WP:MUSICBIO per nomination. Wikishovel (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with this designation. I don't know procedure. Are you able to move to draft? Thank you! SeriousMooonlight (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom, but also, I don't think there's any reason to draftify this, as I don't see any indication that she's likely to get a lot of coverage in the next six months. -- asilvering (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an accumulation of mentions. This is probably the best we've got, but there ain't a whole lot of analysis and it isn't the great source either.

TLA (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Buro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Looks like a minor incident, the only source cited is brief mention from a primary source. But no reliable secondary sources found addressing the topic directly and in-depth. Socialwave597 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an example of skirmish-inflation. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2024 (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 Bobby Miller (musician). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Players Never Die[edit]

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

Originally redirected to Bobby Miller (musician), redirection was contested but I still believe it to be a valid target as I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV for this album to be its own article. Tooncool64 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Illinois, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I cannot find any coverage either. Annwfwn (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Aintabli (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bobby Miller (musician) per lack of notability as WP:ATD. Broc (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus with a satisfaction of WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Akhtar Baig[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN yet. These people may have won the recent election there's no official ECP notification yet.. As per reports, ECP will publish the notifications of successful candidates by 21 Feb 2024. Furthermore, the results of many seats are being challenged in court due to allegations of rigging. It would be premature for us to declare those individuals as MNAs. Saqib (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Once there is at least one reliable source reporting the successful election of a Member of Parliament, they are notable per WP:POLITICIAN. The nominator themselves has done the same in previous elections. All these individuals have been elected Member of Parliament per reliable sources except Salman Akram Raja who has general notability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat what I wrote on your talk page, just because a mistake was made in the past doesn't justify repeating it. You must present a single reliable source that explicitly states "Mirza Akhtar Baig or others have been elected as members of parliament." I feel its very important to await the official ECP list of notified members before proclaiming them as winners solely based on election results. --Saqib (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunya News source is in the article which states Mirza Akhtar Baig has won – all of these articles has a reliable source declaring the subject as having been elected – as far as the challenge is concerned, the challenges keep happening months later that does not mean that we should hold off for months and no, that was not the mistake, it was your consistent behavior throughout past elections, you used to start creating articles as soon as any network reported a winner. You created hundreds of articles that way. And per WP:POLITICIAN, you do not need official ECP notification, one reliable source is good enough. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate official notifications from the Election Commission of Pakistan are crucial before creating BLPs on individuals under WP:POLITICIAN.--Saqib (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion which used to be different during previous elections. Per WP, any reliable source is good enough, you do not need official ECP notification. Yes, if official notification is contradictory later on then the article can be nominated for deletion. As per this moment, these individuals are all elected per WP:RS thus notable for an article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above Codenamewolf (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Above CSMention269 (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator cites WP:NPOL but seems to have missed the sentence that states This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Curbon7 (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: The BLPs were created based on the provincial election results. The election body has yet to release a list of MNAs elected to the assembly, officially confirming their status as elected lawmakers. The process of taking the oath and assuming offices occurs afterwards. For example, 2018 general election were held on 25 July, but ECP notified the final results on 7 August and issued a list of the MNA-elect and then on 13 August, MNA's-elect took oath and assumed office. I say let the election body notify official results & then we're safe to create BLPs under WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major networks in the country have declared these individuals as winners, per WP:RS, we are safe to create articles, if there is a contradiction in ECP notifications then articles for those individuals can be nominated for AFD, that will need to be decided on case by case basis. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all satisfy WP:NPOL; no community consensus that considers prouncements of election commonissions the *only* reliable source. Definitive, yes, but not in exclusion of all others. No prejudice to renominate individuals not subsequently reconfirmed by the EC as elected. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general, WP:NPOL does cover candidates who are elected but have not yet taken office. That said, we have deleted articles of individuals whose election are overturned and who have not taken office. But, unless or until that happens, we should rely on the RSs, which can include preliminary election results. --Enos733 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facial-maschera[edit]

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

Delete BEFORE shows no sources for the painting. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV, let alone mentions of the work in the few biographies of Henri Matisse that I have checked. This page is the only contribution of the editor. Possible hoax? Tooncool64 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Matisse wasn't painting by 1951 other than small gouaches, so this would be an unusual work and would probably have garnered more scholarship if real. Given that there seems to be none, suggests this may be a hoax. We would need to verify the existence of the painting. freshacconci (✉) 23:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article says this work "is one of Matisse's best examples of his use of color and form" it should be known enough to be included in books and articles. Since none has been found so far I've removed it from the Matisse navbox pending further research findings. I notice that I questioned the paintings authenticity in 2017 and, if a hoax, is a rather long-running one (2008). The Beasts of the Sea page says "Eventually by 1950 he stopped painting in favor of his paper cutouts" which would call this page into question (as well as it being in the Fauvism style, which ended decades earlier). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I emailed the Getty Research Institute and asked them to check the 1988 catalogue raisonné. A picture by this name appears in a Matisse Facebook group. It appears to be a black outline of a face on a red ground. Very simple, kinda Picasso-y but lighter in spirit, not sure I'd call it fauvist at all. I presume this article should be deleted for lack of significant coverage even if it's not an outright hoax, but I'll circle back to vote later. jengod (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, load of OR and no indication of SIGCOV. Aintabli (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find even mentions of it after looking it up; definitely doesn't meet notability guidelines. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 22:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no evidence of notability. I'd guess it's a hoax. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. The Getty won't crack a book any sooner than 10 weeks from now and then it might cost money (?!), so I'm letting that door close. Happy to see this recreated someday if someone finds sources but for now goodbye. jengod (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novellasyes (talk • contribs)
Delete: Lack of coverage and other above reasons. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Everyone else's reasons for deletion, I don't have much helpful to say myself. ¿VØ!D? ✨ 18:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As discussed above, this would be notable if it is considered the "best example" of Henri Matisse. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:47, 17 February 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Nainima[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Fijian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a half-dozen sentences of coverage here from the Fiji Sun, which probably fails WP:YOUNGATH. JTtheOG (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fiji-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Idiosincrático (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2024 (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 Eugene Jarecki#Public policy. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Death Clock[edit]

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

fails WP:NSUSTAINED, see also Talk:Trump Death Clock#Is this still active? FMSky (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Websites, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect at most. No sustained notability. Barely had any when it was active. All sources, save the last, were published within two weeks of each other, and most of them are actually op-ed pieces, one written by the guy who sponsored the billboard in the first place, Eugene Jarecki, so questionable sourcing at best. If there's anything to WP:PRESERVE, it's at most a redirect to Jarecki's article, where it's mentioned. oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Clever idea to bring forward a serious problem and better than the simplistic national debt billboard, But I'm not seeing the notability for a standalone article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jarecki's article per above. It fails WP:SUSTAINED and, if I recall correctly, was never a permanent fixture. Rather, it was one of many things displayed on one of the digital billboards in Times Square, with an accompanying website. (The national debt clock nearby, incidentally, is a permanent fixture that has its own dedicated display, which kind of underlines the sharp contrast with the "death clock" here.) Epicgenius (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eugene Jarecki#Public policy per all above. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. Sal2100 (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect by above. AnOpenBook (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eugene Jarecki: The Jarecki article currently only has an uncited paragraph. The cited content here should be moved over. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 16 February 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Janiga[edit]

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

No particular evidence of notability. Article was created by User:ServareManere, the name of the organization that commissioned his supposed masterpiece. Hm. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources showing notability, plus COI issue as mentioned above. Broc (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I've checked are either trivial mentions (a sentence or two), non-independent self-published websites (such as the subject's resume on their own web site cited multiple times) or both. Elspea756 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (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 snow keep‎. (non-admin closure) GSS ^💬 05:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamer Balcı[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Olympedia would give a biography – even if brief – about a non-competing Olympic athlete for a non-English country shows something from the start. Additionally, he appears to have been a pretty prominent actor, with several leading roles it seems in notable films (this source mentions one of them as "iconic" in Turkish cinema"). I'd lean keeping. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, from all indications, he has a SIGCOV bio in the book Historical Dictionary of Middle Eastern Cinema; the German Wikipedia is in-depth as well and lists further sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NBIO. I have added some sources but did not expand it much because most of them are in Turkish but there's enough to meet SIGCOV. I also added couple to a Further reading section that I did not have access to so only get a snippet in GBooks, one being an index to the Turkish biographical archives. Pinging @BeanieFan11: to take a look. I believe another editor is going to add some sources as well (see the talk page). S0091 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All indications were to me that this is notable; S0091's finds of him (including being in the Turkish biographical index – i.e. a pass of WP:ANYBIO) prove it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I've added some extra Turkish sources on his sports career. I will look into his acting career tomorrow. Styyx (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. Toughpigs (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Joeykai: I understand why you nominated the article for deletion but ask you withdraw it per WP:HEY so this does not have to go through a full 7 day discussion. S0091 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there appears to be plenty of coverage of him. Aintabli (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep per improvements, thanks to User:S0091 for their great work on this. --Habst (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Styyx is who pulled it together. S0091 (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Joachim Ernst Memorial Badge[edit]

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

A medal created by the head of a minor royal house over a century after it was overthrown and handed out to various random people doesn’t strike me as particularly notable. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung coverage does appear to be reliable and independent, but one source alone isn't sufficient, and the others are unreliable or non-independent. Can't find other coverage. Marginal, but no strong evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Spadaccini[edit]

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

Initially created by the promotional account FleetStreetFilms it is an almost completely unsourced bio with the only two sources being links to winners list for a short film festival, one of which the subject got second place and the other he won best experimental short. The two films wikilinked here were also created by the same promotional account and probably don't pass muster themselves. Appears to fail WP:FILMMAKER. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of over-the-air HSN affiliates. Consensus from experience editors, nominator noted a mention. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K35OU-D[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. In fact, the only time it got mentioned in Tucson's newspapers was in public notices in the classifieds section. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of over-the-air HSN affiliates: it is listed there, and it seems all known affiliations (as opposed to the unsourced and unspecified "other affiliations") have been HSN or its associated networks, as would be expected for a Ventana Television station. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of over-the-air HSN affiliates: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Per consensus met for GNG after the additon of new sources. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Mango[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, and there is no obvious WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can resolve it now. No consensus in 2005 AfD when standards for inclusion were significantly lower. Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE unless someone is willing to do the work to establish notability - there’s nothing so far. Llajwa (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2024 (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 14:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of a look into this and think it will meet the 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself' notability criterion (at least). So I'll keep working on the article to bring it up to standard. Alarichall (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Review in the Glasgow Herald is fine, but that's all I can see that would count toward notability. I can't find anything beyond streaming sites or a bio at the Conservatoire of Scotland where this person works. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I've added references to coverage in national UK papers including The Sunday Times, Metro, and The Scotsman. I haven't done a comprehensive trawl of reporting, but I think that the article now shows that Jo Mango meets the notability criterion 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself'. Alarichall (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage references added to the article such as the Sunday Times, The Scotsman, and The Herald (Scotland). Am exercising WP:AGF as urls are not provided for two of the three aforementioned sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (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 informally named pterosaurs. The consensus is established to redirect and move the article content to List of informally named pterosaurs. The redirect can be done after the merging is complete. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satsumayokuryu[edit]

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

Direct translation of ja-wiki article with no attribution, possible machine translation. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

*Keep. I’m not clear what the deletion rationale is here. If it’s a translation from ja.wiki, add the translation template to the talk page. (The ja.wiki article was created by the same user by the way). If it’s a machine translation it’s not a bad one, but tag it for improvement if you want to. The sources aren’t brilliant but they seem to amount to a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC) changing my !vote after reading other editors’ comments Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Not formally described as a taxon, so WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES does not apply. Any claim to notability would be as an individual fossil specimen (it should be in Category:Specific fossil specimens), although I'm not convinced it is notable as an individual fossil (I'm also not convinced that several other articles in that category tree are notable). Can revisit notability of the draft if/when it is formally described as a taxon. Plantdrew (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are no particular issues with the content of the article.山登太郎 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — 山登太郎 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Once again, being an attributed machine translation (especially of this quality) is not a reason to delete an article about a notable topic. DCsansei (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as for Satsumautsunomiyaryu and as per Plantdrew. This needs a valid classification before it can be a species article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "redirect" and not "move"? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, will fix. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and move to List of informally named pterosaurs where it belongs. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My preferred WP:ATD here is merge and redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew and Elmidae: Would this be acceptable? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me - can be split off when formally descirbed and sufficient material available. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK. Plantdrew (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and move to Satsuma pterosaur (薩摩翼竜). Asahi Shimbun articles establish notability. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is if there is another case of undescribed pterosaur that have page though. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of informally named pterosaurs A fossil specimen being covered by newspaper articles is not really good enough to have a standalone article, but enough to be covered in the list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Again, this article deserves a sufficiently independent article.山登太郎 (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striken - you only get one !vote, though you may continue to comment and reply... up to the point of WP:BLUDGEON. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'll be careful. 山登太郎 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically in English Wikipedia undescribed taxa mostly does not have own article. "Nurosaurus" for example, despite somewhat well-known and have decent materials, does not have own article and just have name in List of informally named dinosaurs. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's trying to destroy my article. Please take a look at his posting history. The history of the attack remains. 山登太郎 (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I present my editing history here. Regarding the request to delete Satoshi Utsunomiya's article, it was just my misunderstanding, but other than that, it was just a report of this user's problematic behavior, a correction to a machine-translated article, etc., and no offensive intent. The reason why many articles by this user remained in the editing history is because there were many mistakes in the content of the articles, which were often noticed after editing. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs as suggested above. Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2024 (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. Due to the already borderline notability, and taking into account the subject's own request, I find that WP:BLPDELETE / WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE apply. This bio entry of a living person should not be recreated unless there's evidence of significant upward movement to the subject's notability (as WP:NPROF or whatever). El_C 06:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Ivan Katchanovski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Katchanovski is notable neither as an academic nor as an author, and is not known by the wider public for any reason. His sole claim on public attention is as the origin of a WP:FRINGE theory that the Maidan massacre was a false flag operation. The conspiracy theory has subsequently been disseminated by Russian propaganda sources. The biographical article on Katchanovski is a WP:COATRACK for this contentious political viewpoint, and should be subsumed into the main article on Maidan casualties, should anything be worth rescuing. Nangaf (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been re-nominated for deletion as previous discussions did not reach consensus. Since those discussions, further developments have rendered Katchanovski's conspiracy theory even more dubious: most notably, that a Ukrainian court has determined that 40 of the 48 dead were shot by the Berkut, and that causes of the remaining 8 deaths cannot be conclusively determined. Nangaf (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies. I show below the most cited:

Quoted in Google Scholar 1664 times, with h-index 22 and i10-index 36.[6]

"The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine?" Cited 151 times.

"The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less" Cited 133 times.

"Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006" Cited 95 times.

"The future of private sector unions in the US" Cited 85 times.

"Divergence in growth in post-communist countries" Cited 84 times.

"Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama" Cited 80 times.

Widely quoted in Google Books.[7]

Widely quoted in Google News.[8]

Over the past year, he has been the main source for the Yaroslav Hunka scandal, and has been quoted all over the world.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

All important Western sources mention him frequently:

The Guardian [22][23]
The New York Post [24]
Reuters [25]
Al Jazeera [26]
Associated Press [27]
The Washington Post [28]
CBC.ca [29]
The Nation [30][31]
France 24 [32]
Radio Free Europe [33][34]
Radio Canada International [35][36]
Le Figaro [37][38]
The Forward [39]
National Post [40]
The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles [41]
Courthouse News Service [42]
Die Weltwoche [43]
La Razón (Madrid)[44]
CTV News [45][46][47]
CP24 [48]
Panorama (magazine)[49]--Mhorg (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Academic citations are not sufficient evidence of academic notability: Katchanovski does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC.

(2) Press citations are not evidence of notability: this is a biographical article, yet none of the pieces you mention are about Katchanovski himself. Nangaf (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, his work was cited, although not necessarily "favorably". Does it mean he is notable enough? This is a replay of previous nominations. There is only one difference right now: the subject of the page has strongly expressed dissatisfaction with the BLP page about him. Well, if he feels this page should be deleted, I think it would be fair to agree and delete. But if he wants to keep it, let's keep. I know, this is not really a policy-based argument. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with keeping or deleting this page, whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, there is a section of WP:BLPDELETE which discusses the wishes of the subject as being a consideration. Such wishes can be used as a tie-breaker, much the way you are arguing, if I understand what you are saying. jps (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. This is Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Relatively_unknown_subjects: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Based on that, I would encourage the subject (who currently edits as an IP) to request to "delete" or "keep" their BLP page, whichever they prefer. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion terminates without consensus once again, then that could come into play. Personally, I do not doubt that the IP user is who he claims to be. Nangaf (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Based on his comments, he will want to keep the page to promote himself and his ideas. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

My Very Best Wishes and Nangaf deliberately flood my biographical Wikipedia article and talk page with deliberately false and libelous information against me as a Ukrainian scholar in retaliation for my peer-reviewed article that mentioned their systematic whitewashing of contemporary far-right, including their involvement in the Maidan massacre, and whitewashing of Nazi collaborators and mass murderers in Ukraine.
They libelously and falsely call my peer-reviewed articles “conspiracy theory.” They deliberately omit my peer-reviewed studies and their favorable reviews by over 100 scholars, experts, and media. They deliberately and fraudulently misrepresent findings of the Maidan massacre trial verdict even after I provided specific parts of Maidan massacre trial verdict and media sources showing specific parts of the verdict confirming findings of my studies. They libelously and falsely link me to Putin.
None of my information and reliable sources that I provided was included in the article and none of the false and libelous claims were removed even after I provided all the sources. Nangaf responded saying “sue us.”
In addition to been libelous, such deliberate misrepresentation and manipulation of sources qualifies as fraud in academia.
They also deleted any favorable information, such as my prediction of the Russia-Ukraine war and my calls for EU membership of Ukraine. The article also deliberately omitted my role in in the SS Galicia veteran in the Canadian parliament scandal, my previous affiliation with Harvard University, that I one of the most cited political scientists specializing in Ukrainian politics and conflicts, and that mt research-based interviews, publications, and comments appeared in thousands of media reports.
Either remove the libelous and false information about me or delete my article immediately.
I always told my students to never use Wikipedia for such reasons. Ivan Katchanovski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.47.71 (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I actually removed "conspiracy theory" in my recent edit [50], even though it is indeed a theory about a conspiracy allegedly committed by Maidan leadership. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libelous and false claims calling my academic studies "a conspiracy theory" were posted on my article and talk pages and various other Wikipedia pages, and remain there with the exception of this edit.

The article deliberately includes only all the negative sources that they could find. 174.92.47.71 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You claim to be Katchanovski. You have requested that the article be deleted, if various criteria are not met. These facts may be relevant to the current discussion. The accusations you have made are not, and may contravene Wikipedia policy. They have been reported. Nangaf (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Here's another one of these discussions where h-index and Google search arguments are thrown around without much contextualization. I really don't care for how many Google Scholar hits someone has: if one can prove that a scholar is cited a few times and indicate how that citation takes place, then there's an argument, a much stronger one than "oh this guy has 1664 hits". Look at those hits closely, and one finds that (as is frequent in for instance sociology) these citations are just that--citations in long lists of other citations (the usual boring literature review), with no actual work being cited or assessed. Sure, he's cited a bunch, and those citations prove he's got a job etc., but if he's going to be notable via NPROF you can't just say "he was cited": you have to prove that his work was meaningful. That really goes for passing the GNG as well. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bog-standard citation index--if this counts as notable for academics then almost anyone at a research university is getting a Wikipedia article. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence given this subject satisfies NPROF or GNG. Per the above comments, a list of Google Scholar hits without any context doesn't prove much. Also of note is that the WP:BURDEN for establishing verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and I would argue, in this case, wants to keep a BLP about someone who probably isn't notable. I also want to add that what the article subject himself wishes isn't especially pertinent to a deletion discussion, and we don't keep BLPs just to spite the article subject when they are angry with us and making demands. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 18:02, 16 February 2024 (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. BeanieFan11's findings provided consensus. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Quintana[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quintana meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[51]] and [[52]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The profile in the Arizona Daily Star states that it's a countdown of the "50 best athletes on the University of Arizona campus right now, with help from athletes, coaches, and those close to the program." This is not going to be fully independent coverage, and the fact that the author is doing these profiles for 50 current student-athletes at the school suggests this is closer to a routine local news profile. Note also that the author attended the same school, where he was presumably quite affiliated with Wildcats sporting staff through working at the school newspaper. The combination of all these factors makes me discount this source. The other news piece (from the same outlet) is a passing mention totaling two sentences on him.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let'srun found some coverage that can contribute to GNG, but if that and what's in the article is all there is, it's short of where I put the GNG bar. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be a good amount of coverage of him, e.g. Arizona Daily Star feature, another, another, another, then MLive, Detroit Free Press, The Arizona Republic, Detroit News, Baseball America, etc. @JoelleJay and Muboshgu: BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two non-ADS are announcements that are routine for baseball coverage, the third is actually also by ADS, but the Detroit News one looks good. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I’m unable to access the ADS sources by Beanie, so I can’t comment on those. For the others, Detroit Free Press and Arizona Republic are both routine draft coverage and MLive is a retirement post that isn’t substantial. Of interest is Detroit News and Baseball America, which both cover Quintana’s struggles in the minors. While both have substantial content, plenty of other minor league players also struggle, don’t make it, and unfortunately don’t get an article as there wasn’t other notable coverage.

There just isn’t anything else going for Quintana like being a top prospect that busted (he was a second-rounder with some power) that builds enough of a case to pass WP:GNG for me. Sources in article are mostly statistical and the sources provided by Letsrun is based on his time in college that seems routine. Searches for other sources just drew up more local college coverage or minor league trades that happen all the time. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 04:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- The ADS sources are all extensive in-depth feature stories on Quintana. The Detroit News and Baseball America both do count towards GNG as whether "plenty of other minor league players struggle" is irrelevant; what matters is whether they have significant coverage which is all that is necessary for GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG with the multiple feature articles posted by BeanieFan11. Hatman31 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beanie's findings. - Skipple ☎ 19:37, 16 February 2024 (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 National University, Bangladesh#Prominent affiliated colleges. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Burhanuddin Post Graduate College[edit]

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

The consensus of the 2014 discussion was keep, based on it being an accredited degree-granting institution. The days when verifiable existence was enough per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES are long gone. The only source that has ever been cited is the college website.

Searches in English and Bengali found passing mentions, an opinion piece that describes its founding (but is not reliable for facts, per WP:RSEDITORIAL),[53], routine coverage and press releases.[54] There is also a pair of stories from December 2023 alleging corruption.[55][56] The scenario is difficult to follow, the principal denies everything, and nothing more has been written, so it's unclear what weight to give them towards establishing notability. Worldbruce (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National University, Bangladesh#Prominent affiliated colleges given lack of significant coverage to base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 17:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National University, Bangladesh#Prominent affiliated colleges.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not seeing a source for its affiliation with National University, Bangladesh. Are we sure it's actually affiliated with that school? -- asilvering (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is affiliated.[57]. Redirect is an acceptable alternative, although it raises the question of what the criteria are for inclusion in the "Prominent affiliated colleges" list. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2024 (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 educational institutions in Barisal District. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A.B.R. High School[edit]

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

This article is not covered in any sources except for one reference provided. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 21:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find sources that would help this school meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Redirect to Barisal#Education or List of educational institutions in Barisal District after adding this to the list. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge to List of educational institutions in Barisal District. I agree there are insufficient sources, in English/Bengali, to demonstrate notability. The cited source states the year the school was established, which is a common datum in lists of schools, so a merge (albeit trivial) of that information is worth while. We also know the coordinates. Would that be a second useful thing to merge into the list? --Worldbruce (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (parlez) 17:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of educational institutions in Barisal District. There's not a lot to move but I also can't find any sources in English to demonstrate notability and the list doesn't have it yet, so it would be worth adding it there. Shaws username (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus companies of the Philippines[edit]

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

This list does not meet MOS:LIST, as less reliable sources and most of them are original research - Jjpachano (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of links to Wikipedia articles, making this a valid navigational list. Navigational lists are far more useful than categories since more information can be listed, helping people find what they are looking for. Remove anything that doesn't have its own article or a section in another article. Dream Focus 18:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of blue linked entries. Article can be improved by clearing out the unsourced, non-notable entries. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid list but needs TLC though. I'll give it a go. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Enough blue links to justify the existence of this list. Agletarang (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2024 (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 Armando Diena. Closing as merge to Armando Diena which can then be redirected. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferruccio Diena[edit]

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

Fails GNG with a lack of sigcov. Being in the Dizionario della grande Juventus (if reliable and if sigcov) isn't enough. Dougal18 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. There is no 1929–30 Juventus FC season so cannot redirect to the season, which would be my preferred option for players who made 1 appearance. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to his brother Armando Diena, if you goto both Italian wiki's you can take the cites and merge all into one English article which would be better. That my thoughts anyway. Govvy (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect – Per @Govvy. Svartner (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect – per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2024 (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. Aoidh (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Givens Corner, Washington[edit]

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

Non-notable rural intersection. Was PROD'ed once before in 2020, then dePRODded by the article's creator, who cited WP:GEOLAND, but the article utterly fails WP:GEOLAND since it is sourced entirely to GNIS. No other coverage could be found other than passing mentions in the local press (as a point of reference for where a car accident or property was located). Many rural crossroads were informally named ______'s Corners after the local landowner, for the sake of navigation; this does not mean they were ever a "community". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a another Wikipedia lie. The original feature class for this one was "locale", so there's actually zero support for this passing any sort of test whatsoever even if one accepts the GNIS database record. I could not find anything about this at all, and this never truly had a supporting source to start with. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that while the creator of the article made it look like it had 3 citations, 2 of them are just footnotes for the elevation source and the pouplation and actually only provide information about where the elevation and population come from. I'm removing the census one, because there is no census data to go with it.James.folsom (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator has several other Yakima County place stubs sourced in exactly the same way (all of them dishonestly using the "unincorporated community" descriptor for ordinary intersections, rail sidings, springs, and so on); I'm in the process of PRODding them all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you can tell from the edit history it was created from template that was then edited. James.folsom (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just for peace of mind. It's a park near both Mabton and Grandview. At the "corner" of the park, The Grandview commercial club erected a lighted sign for the purpose of directing traffice to Grandview. The park is Givens Park and that intersection is Givens Park Corner. https://www.newspapers.com/article/grandview-herald-givens-park/140665419/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-sunnyside-times-givens-park/140665206/ Givens park corner is also known as Givens corner.James.folsom (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I kept going later and later into its future. The park was short lived, At one point there seems to have been a camp of people living in cars there. It was described as a car park at one point. Though almost all the early mentions are like this "we got free puppies 1 mile west of givens corner". The park and big sign made it recognizable as a land mark, and the size of the area known as Givens corner expanded over time. But there are really very few instances of anyone saying they were from there. These days its probably considered a rural community by the locals. The latest newspaper mention is an obit in 1981, and some of those 60's - 80's mentions tend to mention it as being a part of Mabton. So anyone looking for a merge should consider that. James.folsom (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a GEOLAND fail Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enensys Technologies[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A French Wikipedia article was deleted in 2011 ("Critères d'admissibilité non atteints"). AllyD (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The most substantial given reference is the 2018 Q&A with its founder (which contains information not in the present article about financial problems and restructuring during 2008-11). Aside from that, searches find routine listing and announcement coverage, which is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. A company going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2024 (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. Possible hoax, but not notable in any case. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Oprey[edit]

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

I PRODded the article only for it to be removed with the rationale "deprod, looks like there's already significant coverage". Being mentioned in a paragraph and in a video that is a copyvio is not "significant coverage". I can't find sigcov of Oprey so he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I have concerns about a possible hoax - an English player making multiple appearances in Brazilian football with no coverage??? If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not seeing any evidence of significant coverage or sources that support the claims he played at Santos etc. I share the concerns that this could, at least in part, be a hoax. Dunarc (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage in Norway either where he supposedly played. To the deprodder @Ortizesp: You are allowed to use your senses, not just blindly deprod any and all footballer articles. Geschichte (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not much to help, and signing to Salernitana would have garnered much more than what's on offer, also is the surname possibly spelt O'Prey? Govvy (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There is absolutely nothing to prove the player's time at Athletico Paranaense and Santos FC (an English player playing in Brazil, even in youth categories, would attract the attention of the media). Does this player really exist? Svartner (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, DELETE per all presented in this discussion. Svartner (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything decent for him or the apparent alternative spelling of "Alexandre O'Prey" from the one Tutto Mercato source used in the article. Can't see this meeting GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence this player even exists. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first problem, someone created one account to add this entry only. Esposito.1 did three edits that generated this article back in 2010. It's managed to survive that long. And I've seen it before where a guy managed to generate fake news with real news to create his so called wiki article for CV entry. I am under the impression this maybe a real person doing something similar. I see problems with this and feel it should be exterminated from wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (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. Looks like the new sources raised by A412 and clean-up from StreetcarEnjoyer and Lightburst solidifies this consensus. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6700 slide[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Merge/redirect to Nokia would give undue relevance in that article. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TechRadar CNET Softpedia ~ A412 ^talk! 17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added the sources given and expanded the article a little bit. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the RS, the article does need cleanup so I will do a bit of copyediting. Lightburst (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. However, please note that companies do not need to be extant to be notable, and archived sources do count provided they are otherwise reliable, independent, etc. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DealsDirect[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. I have got a lot of false positives when looking at this. Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable company that expired 13 years ago. Most references have expired and gone to archive, plus final one is dead link. Teraplane (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article indicates that the brand was purchased by Ozsale in November 2015, and the current website indicates it is still owned by Ozsale, but there is no article on that firm which could provide an ATD target. AllyD (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are some book mentions but nothing that could be considered significant coverage. Everything else fails WP:ORGCRIT. I checked on Ozsale and do not believe it would qualify under WP:NCORP either. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Considering the original operating company, there was market-share coverage, such as the paragraph in the 2005 Hitwise blog item, but I don't see that or other available coverage regarding the related DealMe, etc. as the substantial coverage needed to demonstrate WP:NCORP. Considering the later operation as an Ozsale brand, coverage such as the ACCC decision linked above is insufficient to demonstrate attained notability for this brand. AllyD (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Insight[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing that could help to save the page, poor media highlights, etc. Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 23:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonneville Environmental Foundation[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Worthy organisation, but I am not convinced it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: News reporting I've seen is trivial at best and most hits on Google scholar are either name drops or papers written by the organization's staff. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 16 February 2024 (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 MNC Vision as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MNC Entertainment[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Not sure if MNC Channels would be unbalanced by a merge/redirect there. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MNC Vision who is the provider of the channel. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:52, 11 February 2024 (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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McPhee[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ARTIST / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, California, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ugh. Plainly promotional, sourcing is hopelessly inadequate, tagged for many years, and was the creation of a SPA with no other Wikipedia edits. It's frankly embarrassing for this NN article to have been up for this long. Ravenswing 20:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trunk Archive[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. I considered merge/redirect to Waddell & Reed but it doesn't even have a mention in that article at the moment, so may unbalance it. Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Denmark, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as required by WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS. Jfire (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Dally M Awards[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't appear to meet WP:N as a single event. It doesn't seem to have a suitable WP:ATD - although it could merge/redirect to Dally M Awards, it could cause confusion or unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Rugby league, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty much a duplication of what is already on the List of Dally M Awards winners page. If the page is becoming too large, it would make much more sense to split the article by award than by year. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2024 (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 Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marth (Fire Emblem)[edit]

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

Trying to do some digging to find discussion of him as a character for notability, and at most I've only found scraps. He's a *known* character in terms of Smash and Fire Emblem, but in terms of actual commentary there's nothing I was able to find. Scholar itself also offered no useful results. WP:BEFORE just gives all indications that this is another Smash Bros. character in a long line of them with little said. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - currently looking for sources. Seems like I've seen sources over the year about how his presence in Smash Bros helped inspire Nintendo to localize more Fire Emblem games into English language releases. So far, I've only got https://gamerant.com/fire-emblem-marths-past/ and https://www.thegamer.com/fire-emblem-engage-who-is-marth-backstory-explained/ which are pretty detailed usable sources, though usually not considered great indicators of notability on their own... Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light. He may have more mentions in Japanese, but in English he is rarely mentioned thanks to his games going unlocalized and the remakes being unpopular enough that he is mainly known for a game that isn't even a Fire Emblem one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, what he's known for, and what region the sources come from, are irrelevant. All we need to find out is the WP:GNG is met and if there's any convincing WP:MERGEREASONs. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It could be worth checking the Japanese version of the article I'm sure they would have at least something. I did also find this which could be useful from a more fan focus perspective (Siliconera). Don't know how useful it can be, but hey it was worth a shot. Captain Galaxy 14:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked, and the Japanese article has even less Reception than this version of the article. I agree it may be worth checking Japanese sources, but the article in question lacks them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though I haven't looked at any any translations yet, this scholar source mentions Marth quite a few times. MoonJet (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light for now. I am honestly surprised about how little there is for Marth, and I'd genuinely love to see this guy stay, but there isn't enough here for a split for now. A Legacy subsection with Marth, akin to EarthBound and Ness could be good to add given Marth has been arguably the most enduring part of that game. Regardless, if sources are found properly, ping me and I'll consider changing my vote given I'd love to have this article stay.

As for the two sources acknowledged by CaptainGalaxy and MoonJet, they don't really help. The Siliconera source is basically just a popularity poll ranking, which barely contributes to notability, while the Scholar source is an overview of the Fire Emblem series, and the only mentions of Marth are in reference to the plots and appearances of the character in the games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the game or a character list. There isn't enough here for WP:SIGCOV. This is likely a WP:NOPAGE situation, where we could have a summary paragraph of reception about all of the characters. Particularly for sources that are about the characters, with no one in particular. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2024 (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 Bronze Age Europe. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Celtic Europe[edit]

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

This article is a POVFORK of Prehistoric Europe with material also forked from Celts. The article attracts edits about linguistic theories, migration theories etc, that are all treated in better articles, such as Yamnaya culture, Bronze Age Europe, etc., and the only thing distinguishing this from any of these is the term "Celt", but the article is about the time before the Celts, so it is not actually about that. Note that this nomination is not saying pre-celtic history is not notable. For the avoidance of doubt, it certainly is. The European bronze age and earlier are all very notable topics. The nomination is saying the treatment of the subject in this format, with this specific framing, is redundant (and perhaps contradicts better articles). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, and Europe. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bronze Age Europe This is not really a standard term, and the article is rather confused. It was just slightly better in 2013. It is mostly about the arrival of Celtic languages, not what was there before. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bronze Age Europe per Johnbod. – Joe (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novus Summit[edit]

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

Non notable Summit. As grand as it sound this summits actually lacks any depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from those who attended or those who were honoured. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:07, 10 February 2024 (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 14:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Singh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. Macbeejack ☎ 13:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Macbeejack ☎ 13:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources are all passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. GSS ^💬 14:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Social and political activists are not judged by WP:NPOL, which they would almost all fail, because they generally work outside the political office-holding system. We need to use other standards to judge notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom — QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 09:49, 11 February 2024 (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 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Hyo-jin[edit]

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

Stats stub on a footballer that only ever played one match at professional level. In Japanese, I found Kazuamata no Tsuzuri, which is evidently a fan blog for Yokohama FC. I also found a user-submitted blog post on Naver about his wedding, which is no better than a social media post in terms of notability. Neither of these are examples of reliable, independent journalism with high standards for fact checking, therefore they do not confer notability. Doesn't seem to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, better to concentrate on cleaning out this junk than players with 100+ games. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Fortuny[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR/WP:GNG or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure bit-part actor. Couldn't find even a single interview. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV. Been on the CAT:NN list for more than a decade and never been updated. No Gbook except passing mentions in cast lists. No reviews. scope_creep^Talk 14:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Spanish language source lookup may help. He seems to have been in the industry for donkeys, starting at age 9. scope_creep^Talk 15:08, 11 February 2024 (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 Racism in English football. ✗plicit 14:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football Unites, Racism Divides[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Organizations, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Racism in English football. Giant Snowman 13:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or possibly merge (if permitted) to Racism in English football. Sees to be a good WP:ATD. scope_creep^Talk 14:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kei Hirata[edit]

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

Played about 6 minutes of football before retiring. This source is not enough for WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG on its own. The only other source on the footballer of this name seems to be Emine Cross, which is not independent as it appears to be his employer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not significant enough. Fulmard (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2024 (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 14:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMML (Motorola)[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a good WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable technology. Jfire (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Ishikawa[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer that only ever played one football match. The best coverage found in Japanese was Goo, a blog post that mentions him in a list of players being released and confirms his date of birth, height, weight and position (so nothing more than a database entry, really) and Targma, which contains a couple of trivial mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not significant enough. Fulmard (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Ahmadi[edit]

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

I couldn't find anything in his native language (فرید احمدی) or otherwise to suggest that he meets even WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which is not surprising given that he only played a handful of games in 2003 before seemingly disappearing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2024 (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 by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let Go (KMFDM album)[edit]

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

Non notable album Jax 0677 (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NALBUM. Multiple SIGCOV reviews in the first page of Google results: [58], [59], [60], [61]. Reminder to nominator to check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. Jfire (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I did check for sources days ago, and the number of reliable articles was close to none. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More reviews: [62], [63], [64], [65]. Jfire (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The PROD was contested without immediately adding sources to the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient reviews to meet WP:NALBUM. I've added some of the reviews to the article in case that is a sticking point. Skynxnex (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: KMFDM is one the most popular industrial bands in the world. Sufficient reviews exist to meet notability. Will expand the article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination is illegitimate because there is no evidence that the nominator put sufficient effort into a WP:BEFORE search upon PROD'ding the article (8 Feb), this AfD appears to be purely an act of disagreement with the removed PROD, and the nominator did not acknowledge the possibilities offered by WP:ATD (in which the accepted procedure for a notable band's album is to redirect when necessary) or WP:NEXIST or WP:NOTCLEANUP. Regardless, this entire time the album has had plenty of reviews from reliable music publications as seen above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination - Though I actually did look for references when the album first came out and came up empty, I support withdrawing this AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2024 (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 Viasat (Nordic television service)#TV channels. ✗plicit 00:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV3 (Viasat)[edit]

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

The notion that the channels represent 'one brand' and a shared character feels very WP:OR-ish. The channels are obviously notable but I can't find any coverage for the "TV3 brand name" so this article most likely doesn't meet WP:GNG either. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Slovenia, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Viasat (Nordic television service)#TV Channels. It's redundant given there's already a disambiguation page and a list of channels on the company article. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 12:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to above mentioned article. No need for a redundant article.BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2024 (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, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Myanmar Futsal League[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. The only source that I can find about the season is a Blogspot post, which is not an acceptable source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creative economy in South Korea[edit]

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

I don't think this is notable, I know there are some citations given from third parties, but the majority are from primary government sources. The article is discussing a piece of obscure jargon at length, with numerous POV, style, prose, and sourcing issues. If this isn't deleted, it needs to be significantly cut down. toobigtokale (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the refs are doubled or tripled (author probably didn't know citation formatting), and they don't link to anything or give titles. They are mostly written/created by the same few people. Also, prose is very essay-ish. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:19, 10 February 2024 (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, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naing Lin Tun[edit]

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

Soccerway does not count towards WP:SPORTBASIC #5 and I couldn't find any evidence of notability in my Burmese and English searches. The MNL is not independent and is only a passing mention and Tribun News is just an image caption from an under-19 fixture. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2024 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Pryadko[edit]

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

Non notable person, not pass Wikipedia:Notability. Кронас (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Кронас (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He participated as a policeman in the 2024 Bashkortostan protests

СлаваУкраїні 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Myanmar Futsal League[edit]

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

As this has passed New Page Patrol and is relatively old now, I am not allowed to send to draft. That said, it currently has no acceptable sources and probably shouldn't have passed. I don't consider a Facebook photo to be acceptable justification for an article. Searching in Burmese (မြန်မာဖူဆယ်လိဂ်), I was unable to find any significant coverage of the 2024 season. News Eleven contains a passing mention of the 2020 season, MT News seems to be about a different tournament and is from 2023, this News Eleven article is from 2024 but is about the national team rather than the league. Searching in English, I can find GNLM but that's about the 2023 season and is painfully brief besides.

In summary, this article is totally inappropriate for mainspace and I can't find any sources to justify it. If someone can find sources that show in-depth coverage of the 2024 season of this competition, I would suggest moving this to draft space. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because if we move it to draft, he'll just move it back. Star Mississippi 14:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2024 (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. Sourcing was cleaned-up/updated, ref-bomb issues were fixed. Hence, recent delete vote was addressed. asilvering did a great job managing this process. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuko.co.ke[edit]

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

All the sources are very base: Business exists, business does business things. No notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Kenya. UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this project has dozens of sources which are recognizable and noteworthy. Obviously has made significant contributions in its home country. International and regional notability is still notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathantx (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please list WP:THREE sources (and no more) that pass WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this looks like a promotional refbomb. "Buisiness exists, business does business things" is an accurate way to describe it. All the references appear to be non-independent coverage or no-byline news briefs. -- asilvering (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a lot of sources but it's refbombed. Some sources merely confirm minor awards won. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the major/biggest Kenyan news media, with a refbomb problem though. Looks notable and as a small article or a stub could look even better. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BoraVoro can you highlight which sources you think show notability? -- asilvering (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per its inherent notability as the largest digital media in Kenya, and also significant coverage from books on Kenyan politics and media about the website, I added to the page. This also balances other references which are not too deep so to say. P.S. Promotional content should not lead to a vote for deletion, just as neutral content should not warrant a vote to keep the page. --NiLok223 (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NiLok223 can you highlight the sources you've identified as sigcov in this discussion, please? -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to kenyans.co.ke, Tuko.co.ke is one of the most popular media outlets in Kenya, with the highest traffic among other sites in the country, as confirmed here or here. Such ratings confirm the notability and the article meets WP:GNG --Loewstisch (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you list might squeak past WP:SIRS, if that can be considered WP:SIGCOV, but the second one does not provide SIGCOV at all. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the prose is in the form of a list and it feels ADVERT-y. Could be notable with a WP:TNT. If one of the Keep !voters finds good sources out of all of those, please let me know. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found additional evidence from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism confirming that TUKO is a leading media in Kenya, which should help with notability issue. [66]. Regarding sources, I already added two books that provide comprehensive coverage and analysis of the subject's significance in Kenya's media landscape. --NiLok223 (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NiLok223, it would be really helpful if you - or anyone else - could clearly identify what you think are the best sources with the most significant coverage. It is very possible that people who have already !voted delete will change their minds if shown good sources (see for example the !vote immediately above your comment). Everyone who has called for "delete" has already looked at the article, so telling us "it's in the article" won't help. If we've missed something (which is easy when it's so refbombed), please let us know what it is. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've cleared out a lot of the refbomb. It should be easier to see the relevant sources now. I haven't rewritten anything or checked any of the sources for verifiability or notability, but it should be easier for someone to convert the remaining "list of facts" problem into actual narrative sentences. Editors mostly concerned with the adverty nature might want to take a second look. -- asilvering (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is definitely notable as the most or top-3 most visited websites (not media) in Kenya. I would suggest deviating from the classical approach as per WPNCORP and WP:THREE since the media often do not cover their rivals (I've recently read somewhere a good discussion on that matter on Wiki). Additionally, the Tuko website is the biggest news publisher on Facebook globally (not in Kenya) surpassing the global leader Daily Mail - per Oct and Nov 2022 reports by social media engagement tracking firm NewsWhip [67] and [68]. According to Alexa ranking (Feb 2022), Tuko was the third most visited website in Kenya after Google and YouTube, followed by Facebook. Therefore, the page meets the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). The sources added during that discussion, including books and others, and the removal of advert lines significantly improve the page as well Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2024 (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. Better sourcing seems to be requested, though – will be tagging this for that. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2003 Saddam Hussein interview[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENTS per the conditions in WP:COVERAGE. The article was created in 2005 and has been sparsely edited in the 20 years since. There has not been subsequent in-depth coverage that puts the interview into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines and does not appear to have the lasting significance that notable interviews with other political figures have had, such as An Interview with HRH The Princess of Wales, Nixon interviews, Betty Ford's August 1975 60 Minutes interview, Palin–Couric interviews. True, the interview was on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but nothing said during the interview or the coverage seems to point to its lasting notability. Longhornsg (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spencerk + historical NAADAAN (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This event meets notability for it's geo-political context, as a controversial event in journalism, and also as a notable event in television history. Agree that page could be punched-up to include context. See the recent documentary The big interview The panel on the interview in 2008 at National Conference for Media Reform, Rathers' Trustees Award nomination It was extremely controversial, at the time. The CBS CEO called it "It was the craziest sweeps in the history of show business"1. A number of details provided in the interview provided new information about diplomacy leading up to the war. Please consider the scale of the events leading up to the war, and the role of this interview in prime-time news. 1 2 3 4 5 I presume it's recent attention this week is due to its comparisons with the recent Putin-Carlson interview. For recent reflections, see op-eds in 2017, lists of most famous interviews, etc. That's just a bit of googling, but please see the google books results for the full-illustration of how noteworthy the event was in modern history. I'm happy to improve the article, to add the historical context that is required WP:NOTPAPER cheers Spencerk (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spencerk. This was important at the time, and notability is not temporary. The existing state of the article is not a reason for deletion; as long as sources exist (WP:NEXIST). Toughpigs (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article most certainly does not fail WP:MILL or WP:10YT. However the sourcing is very bad, and the highlights outtake is entirely subjective. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Armenia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Areni Hamparian[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was a few sentences of coverage here. Everything else that came up in my searches were passing mentions, mostly in Armenian media. JTtheOG (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Armenia. JTtheOG (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2024 (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!} 06:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Thapar[edit]

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

non-notable User4edits (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Motorsport, India, and Delhi. User4edits (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – appears to be notable for only WP:ONEEVENT, the viral video. Almost all online coverage relates to that incident, although some articles ([69], [70]) seem to exist about his local rally wins. Feel free to tag me if anyone finds more convincing WP:SIGCOV. MSport1005 (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2024 (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!} 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Festival du Film Merveilleux[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Magic, Events, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Keep. I removed a few things. Cleanup is still necessary. And update. Added a few sources that seem to prove it is notable. The full name is "Festival du Film Merveilleux et Imaginaire". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. A gnews search comes up mainly with www.sortiraparis.com which is an event listing website. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep poorly sourced but IMO notable. Llajwa (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how is it notable? In what way does it meet notability criteria? LibStar (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Libstar. Okoslavia (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, sources in article are promo, primary, not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE found nothing and the above keeps provide no sources to eval. // Timothy :: talk 02:52, 13 February 2024 (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 05:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodrocuted[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Searches found little to nothing. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Belgium. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NBAND. No sources. Prose is a little weird (maybe original author had a COI?). —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the GNG. Coverage is either niche or not SIGCOV, for example when an ex-drummer died in a motorcycle accident. gidonb (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2024 (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!} 02:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Hamlow[edit]

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

Unnotable politician holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and SIGCOV. No notability established. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, barely any secondary sources which are are all WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2024 (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!} 02:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bea Proo[edit]

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

Unnotable politician holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A worthy citizen but no evidence of notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG The source (the only one) doesn't elaborate and fails SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, barely any secondary sources which are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2024 (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!} 02:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Bellevue mayoral election[edit]

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

Local election for a small city with very little outside coverage, failing WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:GNG. The largest newspaper in its metropolitan area (the Omaha World-Herald) has only a handful of articles and none since the result was determined, failing WP:LASTING. Sounder Bruce 02:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nebraska. Sounder Bruce 02:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not sure why this election was singled out for an article; I have never seen any articles about elections in cities of similar sizes. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable election, fails the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (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!} 00:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Connolly (footballer)[edit]

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

Unsourced biography. Unclear notability. Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my own WP:BEFORE, I cannot find sufficient sources to support even the basic/scant facts that the article contains. Not to mind sufficient sources to establish WP:SIGCOV or WP:NBIO. (Note: In the 1950s, Bohemians were an amateur club, so even the [now defunct] "NFOOTY" criteria wouldn't have applied. Can't see any case for retaining title...) Guliolopez (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No source with no notability anywhere. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had no luck in my search for "a" source as well, which is just the beginning when it comes to the subject's lack of notability as pointed out by Guliolopez. Aintabli (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination and single deletion !vote withdrawn, speedy keep per SK1. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Zhong[edit]

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

Unsourced biography since its creation in 2005. Unclear notability as a Han dynasty eunuch. Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and China. Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Rafe de Crespigny, Fire over Luoyang: A History of the Later Han Dynasty 23-220 AD (2016); and Ulrich Theobald, http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Han/personszhengzhong1.html, in turn citing three secondary or tertiary sources in Chinese. (The last three I have not been personally able to access.) Overall the preponderance of evidence suggests this is notable. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Subject has had an illustrious career as senior eunuch, holding sway over the young Emperor He of Han as a power broker in the eunuch faction against the consort kin faction (a familiar theme in Han dynasty politics). He is given a biography in the Book of Later Han, but more relevant to Wikipedia policies, his life is detailed in Rafe de Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms (23-220 AD) (p. 1130). In de Crespigny's other work Fire Over Luoyang, Zheng Zhong is mentioned no less than 28 times, and is described as having played "a critical role" in the coup against the consort kin Dou clan of Dou Xian, and his involvement sets a precedent as "the first time members of the inner court had been so actively involved in politics," and that "Zheng Zhong and his associates were models for the for the future, [where] palace eunuchs would become major players in the politics of the dynasty." (p. 132). Key political figure of lasting influence with unarguable notability. _dk (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable historical figure. Retinalsummer (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More notable than many others with biographies and Wikipedia articles in Book of the Later Han and with citations from Rafe de Crespigny, arguably the most reputable English-language source on the era. In-line citations from Book of the Later Han vol. 78 should be added by someone familiar enough with the Classical Chinese, and as I have access to de Crespigny's Biographical Dictionary... I will add citations from that when I can, but the topic is still notable even if sources are identified but not yet included in the article. Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: having now added inline citations, specific criteria for notability according to de Crespigny explicitly include: significant involvement in a palace coup; being granted a marquisate as a reward (de Crespigny does not specify him as the first eunuch of Later Han to be granted one however); being the first Later Han eunuch to be significantly involved in governance; and being the first Later Han eunuch to pass on a fief to an adopted son. These are in line with WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a power behind throne and historical figure. Extra passes WP:NPOL as senior court official. What a nonsense AfD. Shame! 1.46.88.188 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am willing to withdraw, but I believe it is not allowed with the Delete !vote by User:I2n2z. Natg 19 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the discussion, I'm willing to withdraw my delete vote. i2n 2z 03:14, 16 February 2024 (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. Withdrawn by nominator per sources found by Cunard. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xing Rongjie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rongjie

Articles for deletion/Xing Rongjie

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

Unsourced biography. Does not seem notable, but unsure if "founding general" means anything, or if his medals confer notability. Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and China. Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. He is discussed on 12 pages of this book published by Beijing Book Co. [zh].
2. 中国军事大辞典 [Chinese Military Dictionary] (in Chinese). Vol. 1. Haikou: Hainan Press [zh]. 1992. p. 673. ISBN 9787805901060. Retrieved 2024-02-10 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "【邢荣杰】( 1911 ~ ) 1964 年晋升为中国人民解放军少将军衔。河北省无极县人。 1933 年任国民党保卫团大队长。1937 年参加八路军,同年加入中国共产党。抗日战争时期,任冀西游击队第五大队大队长,司令部参谋长兼三支队支队长,冀豫抗日义勇军参谋长,太行军区第五军分区三十四团参谋长,第八军分区参谋长。解放战争时期,任太行军区第五军分区参谋长,晋冀鲁豫野战军第六纵队十六旅参谋长,第十八旅副旅长兼参谋长,中原军区军政大学总队长,第二野战军十二军三十六师师长。中华人民共和国成立后,任第三兵团师长兼川东军区涪陵军分区司令员,南京军事学院训练部战术教授会教员、副主任,驻越南社会主义共和国大使馆武官,重庆步兵学校校长,陕西省军区副司令员。"
  From Google Translate: "[Xing Rongjie] (1911 ~ ) was promoted to the rank of Major General of the Chinese People's Liberation Army in 1964. A native of Wuji County, Hebei Province. In 1933, he was appointed captain of the Kuomintang security regiment. He joined the Eighth Route Army in 1937 and joined the Communist Party of China in the same year. During the Anti-Japanese War, he served as captain of the Fifth Brigade of the Western Hebei Guerrilla Army, chief of staff of the headquarters and captain of the third detachment, chief of staff of the Hebei-Henan Anti-Japanese Volunteer Army, chief of staff of the 34th Regiment of the Fifth Military Division of the Taihang Military Region, and chief of staff of the Eighth Military Division. long. During the War of Liberation, he served as chief of staff of the Fifth Military Division of the Taihang Military Region, chief of staff of the 16th Brigade of the 6th Column of the Shanxi-Hebei-Luyu Field Army, deputy brigade commander and chief of staff of the 18th Brigade, captain of the Military and Political University of the Central Plains Military Region, and 10th Brigade of the Second Field Army. Commander of the 36th Division of the Second Army. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, he served as division commander of the Third Corps and commander of the Fuling Military Division of the Eastern Sichuan Military Region, instructor and deputy director of the Tactics Professor Association of the Training Department of Nanjing Military Academy, military attache of the Embassy in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, principal of Chongqing Infantry School, Shaanxi Province Deputy Commander of the Military Region."
3. Dangshi Bocai Journal article. Shijiazhuang: Dangshi Bocai Journal 党史博采. 1993. Retrieved 2024-02-10 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "邢荣杰( 1911- )河北省无极县人。 1937 年参加八路军。曾任冀豫抗日义勇军参谋长、陕西省军区副司令员等职。 1964 年晋升为少将军衔。"
  From Google Translate: "Xing Rongjie (1911- ) was born in Wuji County, Hebei Province. Joined the Eighth Route Army in 1937. He once served as chief of staff of the Hebei-Henan Anti-Japanese Volunteer Army and deputy commander of the Shaanxi Provincial Military Region. Promoted to the rank of major general in 1964."
4. Shao, Yanmiao 邵延淼; Ding, Xiaobing 丁小兵; Zhang, Fan 张帆, eds. (1994). 辛亥以来人物年里录 [Records of Figures Since 1911] (in Chinese). Jiangsu: Jiangsu Educational Press [zh]. p. 239. ISBN 9787534320767. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
  The book notes: "邢荣杰( 1911- )原名宝堂,号明山,山东曹县人。东北抗日联军第 11 军军长,东北抗联总司令部副官长。河北无极人。解放军军事学院训练部战术教授会副主任,驻越南社会主义共和国武官,重庆步校校长,少将,陕西省军区副司令员。"
  From Google Translate: "Xing Rongjie (1911-), formerly known as Baotang and named Mingshan, was born in Caoxian County, Shandong Province. Commander of the 11th Army of the Northeast Anti-Japanese Allied Forces and deputy commander of the Northeast Anti-Japanese Allied General Headquarters. Hebei Wuji people. Deputy director of the Tactical Professors Association of the Training Department of the PLA Military Academy, military attache stationed in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, principal of Chongqing Infantry School, major general, and deputy commander of the Shaanxi Provincial Military Region."
5. Song, Guotao 宋国涛 (2004). 中国元帅将军授衔全纪录: 中国人民解放军1955-1964年元帅将军授衔纪事 [Complete Records of the Awards of Marshals and Generals in China: Chronicle of the Awards of Marshals and Generals of the Chinese People's Liberation Army from 1955 to 1964] (in Chinese). Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press [zh]. p. 264. ISBN 9787801099846. Retrieved 2024-02-10 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "邢荣杰授衔边疆少将 1911 年出生,河北无极人。刘邓大军进军大别山强渡河时, 18 旅参谋长邢荣杰率 53 团护卫,部队端着刺刀攻击前进,打下一个村庄,又扑向另一个村庄。碰上敌人就打,打完又往前冲。53 团在扫清了沿河几个村庄的敌人之后,歼灭了位于公路北侧"
  From Google Translate: "Xing Rongjie was awarded the title of Frontier Major General. Born in 1911, he was born in Wuji, Hebei Province. When Liu and Deng's armies marched into the Dabie Mountains and forcibly crossed the river, Xing Rongjie, chief of staff of the 18th Brigade, led the 53rd Regiment to escort them. The troops attacked and advanced with bayonets in hand. They captured one village and then rushed to another. When you encounter an enemy, fight, and then rush forward after fighting. After clearing out the enemies in several villages along the river, the 53rd Regiment annihilated the enemy on the north side of the highway..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xing Rongjie (simplified Chinese: 邢荣杰; traditional Chinese: 邢榮傑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Cunard's search, Xing's notability has been proven. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. I strongly encourage them to add these sources to the article so that it is not unsourced anymore. Aintabli (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2024 (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!} 00:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Bahzad[edit]

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

Played about 2 minutes of professional league football before disappearing. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC in my Arabic searches. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing notable here. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2024 (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.