Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 19	August 21 >

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 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 23:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Grasso[edit]

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

As we all know, being a writer and appearing on various TV programs doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV. A person needs to actually be written about in order to be notable. The sources here are all either pieces that he has written, trivial mentions, or simply links to websites about TV shows (websites that don't mention him). I can find no indication that Grasso has been written about in sufficient independent sources to support a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and Italy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I won't claim to have done an exhaustive before, but the look I just had for sources turned up occasional quotes and an interview. There is not significant coverage of this writer and food blogger. Rockphed (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2022 (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 23:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nipuna Bandara[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When all the hits on Google are of other people and including "football" in the search only gets a million database entries, I don't think this person has received the significant coverage required to show notability. Rockphed (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2022 (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 23:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FORCE America, Inc.[edit]

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

Zero WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH-compliant coverage located on a search. All we have is press releases, routine company announcements, and business listings. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Minnesota. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. I am not seeing independent reliable sources supporting notability. BD2412 T 01:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:43, 26 August 2022 (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 23:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dumidu Hettiarachchi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sure there are notable Sri Lankan footballers. This is not one of them. Rockphed (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2022 (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 23:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patience Mujuru[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Zimbabwe. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:46, 22 August 2022 (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!} 23:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arap Marindich[edit]

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

Non-notable and low-profile comedian. In news because he became a viral meme. WP:BLP1E applies. Dial911 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:40, 26 August 2022 (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 23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erandi Liyanage[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. No Google News results as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 New Mexico parade ramming[edit]

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

Although a sad incident, WP:NOTNEWS applies as this is unfortunately not an unusual occurrence these days. No indication this event will be particularly more notable than the many before or will happen after. At the *very best*, it's WP:TOOSOON to know if it will have any lasting impact. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New Mexico. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. While there were thankfully no fatalities, fifteen injured is a significant number for any event, especially since several of those injured were police officers and children. Even if vehicle rammings are thought of as a "common occurrence", this one has impacted a particularly large number of people.

2. A prominent native American politician, Jonathan Nez, was also in attendance to this tragedy and narrowly avoided being hit. He has since made a few statements about said event, and will likely go on to make more statements on it when addressing crime in his 2022 reelection bid.

3. Several national news outlets have reported on this event - including The Guardian, USA Today, The New York Post, and CNN - adding weight and impact to its happening.

4. This event took place during a native American celebration, and has affected dozens of native American individuals. While it appears to have been in no way a hate crime, the vast majority of those affected are native American. Native American issues and events seem (to me) to fall victim to underrepresentation on Wikipedia DMartin24 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On your fourth point, I would note that while they are certainly underrepresented, the remedy to this is not to over-represent a different, otherwise non-notable topic. Not that that disproves the other three points of course... exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were this fifteen African-Americans, or - heaven forbid - fifteen white people who were injured, this would have had a wiki page the same day it occurred and more than one editor on it. DMartin24 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to exercise caution when casting aspersions without any evidence-based grounding, especially if it involves race. Expressing an opinion without any policy-based defense is not likely to strengthen your claims for the article's retention. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant coverage from both local and national sources. Just because Wikipedia is not meant to emulate a newspaper does not mean we can't cover notable recent events. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This precisely why we have WP:NOTNEWS, as these kind of events are, unfortunately, all too common these days and significant media coverage at the time of the incident is also common, but that doesn't mean it's a significantly notable event to warrant an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Please provide other such events which: received coverage from 3+ national news outlets, involved more than a dozen persons (preferably including a politician or other notable individual who already has a Wiki page of their own), happened during a public event, and received a response from a US state governor. And preferably provide multiple such examples from the last five years to prove that "these kind of events" are "all too common". DMartin24 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions on this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Yes it was widely reported for one day. No, that's not notability. It's really too soon to establish notability for a DWI, but for instance searching for the perp in the last week brings up routine police/legal system reporting. There's no evidence that this is going to be the subject of lasting interest. Mangoe (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extra! Extra! Delete per NOTNEWS. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not news. From what I can tell, this isn't even a 'ramming', it's an incident of drunk driving. The characterization of this as an 'attack' seems inaccurate. In any case, no evidence of lasting impact, no evidence that there was any sustained coverage aside from the initial onslaught. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:37, 23 August 2022 (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 23:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard O'Connor (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:46, 22 August 2022 (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. Sandstein 18:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Human Rights Monitor[edit]

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

None of the cited sources is about the organization. There does not seem to be significative coverage about the subject in reliable sources, so it does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG at all. Since this is an affiliate of the National Council of Resistance of Iran [1], that could be a good redirect target. MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Iran. MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added more citations to the article, and as far as I can see, no other human rights group has provided more data about human rights in Iran. Their findings have been published by the BBC, Aljazeera, Time magazine, and others, so I think the article is worth the keep. NMasiha (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Mere mentions are not significant coverage about the organization. MarioGom (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their findings are certainly treated as reliable by many third parties, but there's very little coverage of them. I suspect that it may be that they don't talk about themselves to avoid reprisals, which may mean there are no sources to find. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It seems that coverage should exist to meet WP:NORG, but alas I couldn't find much either. Please ping me if sources are found and I will happily change my !vote. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately not a lot of coverage. KSAWikipedian (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2022 (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 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Marques[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. No improvement since last AFD 5 years ago. WP:NFOOTBALL has since been depreciated. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Asia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following two articles for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Note to nominator in future - bundling like this is inappropriate. Giant Snowman 20:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All It is highly likely that not only are there no sources for these three articles but that they have become wrong in the intervening years. Rockphed (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nandita P. Palshetkar[edit]

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

Promo, saved from Speedy to let the discussion go. Some sources are present in the article, however I doubt Morpho achilles (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the promotional tone, It seems a notable topic and passes WP:GNG. Nupamjo (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm uncertain, but I'll say that she seems to be a leader in her field, often quoted in media, having influence in and out of academia.

Egging on. Mother & Baby, [s. l.], v. 8, n. 5, p. 32–34, 2015. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=109268208&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 6 ago. 2022. (mentioned seven times)
"International Women's Day- Dr Nandita Palshetkar." BioSpectrum [India], 7 Mar. 2018. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A530135780/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=cf94b288. Accessed 6 Aug. 2022. (interviewed for international women's day) CT55555 (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguous promotion. All the sources listed only has trivial mention and statements from her. It doesn't cover the topic directly and in detail. No significant coverage. I don't think it passes WP:GNG. Previously, deleted as Nandita Palshetkar (logs) which is repeatedly created. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 11:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with CT55555, doctor looks like notable. BBSTOP (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name is common enough that it turns up often in GScholar, not sure if she's notable as an academic or not. Oaktree b (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WP:FAME: Some subjects may seem notable because they are perceived as being important. But without meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, they are not notable. As far as I can see, there's no WP:SIGCOV. — Tulsi 24x7 05:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hope of a stronger consensus. I'll just say what has already been mentioned that Nandita Palshetkar has been deleted before but this version of the article may be an improvement over the deleted article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found few more published books and publications by Nandita Palshetkar and added into article. Handbook of Drugs in Infertility, FOGSI Focus: Use of Adjuvants in Infertility, Dasgupta's Recent Advances in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, FOGSI Focus: Imaging in Obstetrics and Gynaecolog and you can find other from here. DefenderBoy27 (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's no use finding publications written by the subject. What counts are publications (citations, reviews etc.) written independently by others about her. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some references that qualify it to pass WP:GNG but will request for a copyedit tag to be place instead so the promotion writing tone can be adjusted.Princek2019 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Maharashtra. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from experience this article seems to be notable and is worth encyclopedic, I suggest keeping it per the above reasons. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 04:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It seems to have been improved significantly. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our guidelines for WP:N Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2022 (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. Sandstein 18:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Liddie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find nothing apart from stats. Chumpih ^t 20:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:Anybio so Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability and per Anguilla_national_football_team#Most_appearances as long as se has most appearances for national team which exist long time, it is no way to purely football players from outise "top 50 by IFFHS" be keep ahead of Liddie. Vital to history football at Carribean. Also five language versions along with ENwiki. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything beyond statistics and databases? Any sources to satisfy WP:GNG? Chumpih ^t 14:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL is a deprecated criteria, so your voting reason is not valid. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Dawid2009:. Clearly significant figure in Anguillan football. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTBALL is a deprecated criteria, so your voting reason is not valid. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant. The challenge is that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. The way to counter this is to produce multiple independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject and neither you or Dawid2009 have done that. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage of this person. Rockphed (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage means a GNG fail. After deletion, a redirect may be created to Anguilla national football team. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the best that I can find is EFE but it's just a few mentions in a match report. There isn't anything to build a meaningful biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 28 August 2022 (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 23:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Lloyd[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:45, 22 August 2022 (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!} 04:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayne Berke[edit]

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

Not only does the article's single source contain the merest of passing mentions of the subject, but every mention of his name everywhere is merely a passing reference. Very, very far from notability. Central and Adams (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Film, and New York. Central and Adams (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a fair number of results in ProQuest, Google News, Newspapers.com, etc., but they all seem to be single-sentence passing mentions rather than in-depth coverage. I'm not seeing anything that would make me think that Berke meets WP:NCREATIVE and/or the GNG, though I'm certainly glad to reconsider if there's sigcov that I'm missing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2022 (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!} 02:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P. Sathyanarayanan[edit]

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

It's difficult to do a BEFORE as there are transliteration issues, but the sources provided aren't sufficient for supporting a claim of notability. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violation of BLP. No significant coverage. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2022 (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 13:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Sayed[edit]

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

Barebones stub which merely recites that Sayed was an Afghan athlete who competed in the 1960 Olympics. Sayed was not remotely competitive in his event (400 metres), finishing with the slowest time among all competitors in the 400 (more than 8 seconds slower than the winning times) and failing to qualify for the quarterfinals let alone the semifinals or finals. Fails all applicable criteria: WP:SPORTBASIC (mandating at least one source with WP:SIGCOV, excluding database sources), WP:GNG (lack of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources), and WP:NOLYMPICS (not a medalist). Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Afghanistan. Cbl62 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 20 August 2022 (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 13:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dulamyn Amarsanaa[edit]

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

Barebones stub which merely recites that Amarsanaa was a Mongolian runner who competed in the 1964 Olympics. In fact, he did not advance beyond the first round heats in his event (800 metres). Fails all applicable criteria: WP:SPORTBASIC (mandating at least one source with WP:SIGCOV, excluding database sources), WP:GNG (lack of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources), and WP:NOLYMPICS (not a medalist). Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Mongolia. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 20 August 2022 (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 Bonifacio Global City. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Track 30th[edit]

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

No sources could be retrieved for this minor park. Also only citation is from the official website of Bonifacio Global City development. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bonifacio_Global_City#Bonifacio_High_Street where I added citations regarding this park. Anyways, I found references but they basically boil down to a "nice place to jog and exercise" (which is true BTW). That's why I just opted to expand its parent location's article instead. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bonifacio Global City#Bonifacio High Street. Fails WP:GEOROAD per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect to Bonifacio High Street, merge this to another article such as Bonifacio Global City. This is not located in Bonifacio High Street but is on the next block northbound. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2022 (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 Science journalism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific journalism[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements. Relies on two media sources and an academic source from ten years ago, a third media source fails verification, and two sections have no citations. No ongoing notability or relevance. Seems like it was only ever known because of one person and never widely used Softlemonades (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup/expand. Almost a million Google results for the phrase. [2] [3] Andre🚐 00:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Merge/redirect to science journalism Andre🚐 01:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan:, the specific source you cite is a 1948 piece that discusses journalism focused on Science rather than Julian Assange's concept. As noted on the top of the article nominated for deletion, the article nominated for deletion "Scientific journalism" is not to be confused with "Science journalism", which is a different concept altogether. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright, I'll change mine to Merge/Redirect on that basis. Andre🚐 01:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Id agree that a Redirect could be appropriate since most people coming to Wikipedia are thinking of Science journalism and probably arent coming for Assanges concept. Softlemonades (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect the title to Science journalism. BD2412 T 01:20, 21 August 2022 (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 Thailand at the 1952 Summer Olympics. Viable ATD. No input after a relist and given holiday week, language/time period it is unlikely further input was forthcoming. Star Mississippi 00:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sompop Svadanandana[edit]

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

Barebones stub which merely recites that Svadanandana was a Thai sprinter who competed in the 1952 Olympics. Svadanandana was not remotely competitive in his event (400 metres), finishing with the second slowest time among all competitors (almost 8 seconds behind the winning time) and failing to qualify for the quarterfinals let alone the semifinals or finals. Fails all applicable criteria: WP:SPORTBASIC (mandating at least one source with WP:SIGCOV, excluding database sources), WP:GNG (lack of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources), and WP:NOLYMPICS (not a medalist). Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails a lot of criteria, as listed above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thai-language sources mention him as part of the first-ever Thai Olympics delegation, so listing him and the other competitors at Thailand at the 1952 Summer Olympics and redirecting the title there might be appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Thailand at the 1952 Summer Olympics; mention added. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The same could probably also be uncontroversially applied to Adul Wanasatith and Boonterm Pakpuang, who don't appear to be known for other things. Boonpak Kwancharoen and Satid Leangtanom have significant careers aside from their Olympics appearance, though they don't appear to be particularly notable either. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 20 August 2022 (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 has been identified, and no one has argued that it's insufficient. Star Mississippi 01:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talita Baqlah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Jordan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Olympics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp:GNG, wp:NOLYMPICS, and wp:SIGCOV, as stated by the nominator; coverage is minimal, and apparently hasn't earned medals. Nythar^T^.^C 08:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep national record holder. plenty of significant coverage, did you miss it? allternatively, delete also Khader Baqlah, lest you be called biased. --Afoothiked (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Afoothiked: Could you share links to two or three of the best examples of SIGCOV that you uncovered?. Cbl62 (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: - I found a few newspaper articles (in the English-language daily newspaper The Jordan Times), [4], [5], [6], and have included these in the article. Guess there could be more coverage in Arabic-language media, but am not able to read that language. Oceanh (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely SIGCOV IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is not a scenario where this content is going to be deleted. While the consensus is currently for a keep, this does not preclude coverage within the broader abortion in Ohio/Indiana/Dobbs case and a potential redirect thereto if it makes sense when the case is no longer actively in the news. Star Mississippi 01:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022[edit]

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

Not convinced that the article as written avoids WP:BLPCRIME. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS may also be applicable. I am unable to see a long-lasting societal impact from this unwanted pregnancy. News stopped at where this story broke. A merge to Abortion in Ohio, at least to indicate that the abortion laws in the state may have resulted in such situation, may preferrable to an outright deletion. – robertsky (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, and United States of America. – robertsky (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete into Abortion in Ohio as per the nom statement. Although awful, I don't see this having a notably lasting impact and as things stand I don't think it needs a dedicated article. Obviously things can change if news coverage suddenly becomes more widespread or events occur on the back of this incident, but right now I don't think we need to be reporting news. I am unconvinced by a redirect as I am not sold on the article title as a common or useful search term. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep via WP:SKCRIT #3, erroneous nomination (no accurate rationale provided). This event already has enough citations to confer notability, it's not a crime to be pregnant, the identity of the girl is not relevant to the article so BLP1E is not relevant, and none of the 4 categories of WP:NOTNEWS apply. Therefore it is a erroneous nomination. The quality and length of the article, or a poor title, is irrelevant to a deletion debate and should be discussed in the talk page. Any additional article existing does not also delete this articles notability, and there's nothing preventing that other article from referencing this while also linking to it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Agree with all of this. No case to answer. Nom themselves admits to several relevant uncertainties about whether deletion is appropriate, lamely expressing personal opinions including that they are unsure as to whether it is. So let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My 'may's here are being courteous. I do believe it is BLP1E and NOTNEWS. SKCRIT #3 should not be applicable. – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BLP1E applies to articles on persons. This is an article in an event.
  - WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable either, see below.
  - WP:SKCRIT #3 reads No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. That is exactly the case here. So why should it not be applied? I'm not convinced... is not a rationale for deletion. You say you were being courteous. Perhaps mistakenly so, as it destroyed the logic. Please rephrase in a logically valid manner. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merge has also been proposed at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Requested move 6 August 2022. That RM has now closed and unless this deletion succeeds suggest discussing informally at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals unless someone wishes to make a formal merge proposal. Andrewa (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no active ongoing discussion to merge the content, only a recently closed page rename discussion which was apparently opposed. A "merge" outcome is valid for AfD and a valid !vote none the less, whether it's less formally discussed or not. I have been keeping my eye on this article since it was created (I suggested it be CSD as per the previous AfD, which itself ended delete, but that was rejected), however I do not agree with the speedy keep stance myself and still stand by the fact this is a news story. Happy for the existing content to be merged, but I don't think, as things stand, we need an article. It is often the case with news stories that get a lot of media attention initially that it feels "big" and AfD discussions are often flawed when discussing an active news incident. You can only really judge the longer-term notability after the dust has settled, so to speak. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is no ongoing discussion at a closed RM. But the discussion there is relevant to the merge proposals being made here, don't you think? Perhaps I just do not see your point.

WP:NOTNEWS has been cited above. It reads in part Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. There are then listed some cases in which news content is not encyclopedic, but none of them seem applicable here.

I respect your personal opinion that speedy close is not applicable, but you do not seem to have answered any of the arguments that suggest to me that it is. IMO we need to proceed to a focussed discussion of the merge options, with no merge being one possible outcome of course. But deletion will not improve Wikipedia, and I see no evidence at all that it will. That's why I still suggest speedy close and move on.

I note that your !vote is still Merge and Delete. It is not clear to me what this even means. Deleting the article title and its history while retaining any content would seriously violate some important Wikipedia principles. Andrewa (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Before you revised your comment, when I wrote mine, you implied a merge discussion was ongoing). There is so little here that anyone could merge the fundamental nature of the prose from the source citations, even if not verbatim, so that prose attribution is not an issue if paraphrased differently. We can easily work around this and find a way that the history need not be retained (what there is of it, which is practically nothing). I wouldn't outright oppose a traditional merge (and redirect), but I don't see it being really necessary.

Your opinion is that WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant - that's your view, not a fact, in as much as it is my view that it is relevant. The nature of the article presently is too ambiguous and generic, without any real purpose in its existence, though not sure it violates WP:BLPCRIME. A "keep" or "speedy keep" also implies support of keeping the article standalone, which based on the nature of the event, the little passage of time and the lack of evident significant ongoing reporting, I can't support as things stand. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I violated WP:TALK#REVISE I apologise and would like to correct that. Can you be specific? I certainly did not intend to do so. Or is it just that you didn't read the current version before replying to it? That is your fault not mine if so. The edit conflict software handles this well, in my experience. But you need to check why the conflict occurred before proceeding.

I have no objection to a proper merge discussion, in fact I have been suggesting one. That's part of the reason we should close this AfD asap. But see my comment below regarding your merge and delete !vote. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I use the GUI reply feature which does not necessarily stop a response being submitted if the article has changed in the meantime. I don't think "Or is it just that you didn't read the current version before replying to it? That is your fault not mine if so." is compatible with WP:AGF. It's also entirely irrelevant. We have alternate opinions on this matter, which is entirely acceptable in the scheme of reaching consensus (or not, if it concludes as NC), though a separate merge discussion would be a viable consideration in any case. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also use that feature. I'm surprised that it doesn't notify edit conflicts for you. It does for me.

I did not accuse you of acting in bad faith. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, it's relevant only because the Supreme Court changed the law, otherwise it would just be another medical issue/event. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance or irrelevance is not the same as notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep this important event which is likely a result of the SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade. I am not opposed to speedy keep per above. However, if this page cannot be kept, it should be merged with history into Abortion in Ohio or Abortion in Indiana. In any case, do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge- into Abortion in Ohio, Abortion in Indiana and the impact section at Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. All of these are more appropriate venues for this content. The content is pretty much entirely tied to the last of the three articles but is also obviously important for the first two, not notable enough as some standalone event (yet at least). This is reflected in the article name too, which is just an educated proposal until some writer comes up with a better name. --Killuminator (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Killuminator and Bungle, I suggest you explain what you mean by Delete and Merge and Merge and Delete respectively. If any text content is merged, then the article history must be somehow preserved in order to satisfy the attribution requirements of our copyleft licences. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete the standalone article but reuse content for other articles. The logistics of it would be up to the person applying the consensus once it's reached. Also, I believe this story warrants inclusion in those three articles regardless of this article's ultimate outcome. --Killuminator (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you! Did you note that the explanatory essay to which I linked states a merge and delete is not usually done unless there is a specific and pressing problem with the redirect and later Unless there is a particular reason to delete a redirect, admins should feel free to interpret "Merge and delete" votes as "Merge." A new editor may make such a vote without understanding the licensing requirements; this can be safely read as a merge vote. An advanced editor who wishes to argue for a merge and delete should make clear why the redirect would be unacceptable.
    - Yes, there are other ways of satisfying the licensing requirements, but they are a lot more trouble. Is there any reason to delete the redirect? Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Andrewa: I see Killuminator offered a rationale, as did I further up when you originally asked this. When !voting merge in an AfD, it does not necessarily have to exclusively mean "copy and paste the content, verbatim and then redirect, so that existing attribution must be preserved", although I accept that is usually what happens. My position is that the article does not need to exist and the merging in this instance can also mean reusing the source citations and the premise of what is written to include a similar mention on the target article(s), even if worded differently. Nearly half the prose here is verbal quotation anyway, so we don't attribute that to an editor. Otherwise, I am saying "delete" (but mention it on Example article), which is basically "merge and delete".
      
      I would not oppose a traditional merge if there is preferred consensus for that and do not object to the additional article mentions aforementioned, but either way, my position can be taken as "not keep". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagree. Neither of you have offered any reason at all as to why the redirect should be deleted. We know that you want to do it, but why you think that it would improve Wikipedia to do it remains a mystery. There is no basis for it in policy or guidelines.
      
      No, "delete" is not basically "merge and delete", and the difference is very important. But your thinking that it is basically the same thing might explain a lot. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are, I think, only reading what you want to read and are mis-interpreting statements, so I am unsure if this extended discussion will be fruitful. I have not implied "delete" == "merge and delete", but "delete with some content being useful in another article" could be delete/merge. In essence, I think we can mention this in passing in another article but I don't think we need a standalone article nor a redirect, but I wouldn't outright reject the existence of a redirect if consensus favours it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Didn't you accuse me of violating wp:AGF above? You might like to read my (other-wiki) essay how to reveal yourself without really trying. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've said what I wanted to say. If the closing editor wants to interpret it as a merge vote, they're free to do so. I'll join Bungle in the redirect remarks and add that I feel we don't need a redirect any more than we need a standalone article on this story and that interested people could type in any combination of words to look for this story here (for example 2022 Ohio pregnant girl abortion cases or the same title without the year). There are at least 3 articles suitable to include mention of this event that are all intuitive and related to the story so a redirect is superfluous. --Killuminator (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lots above. Just to summarize my position, there is no argument yet presented for deleting the redirect if this article were to be merged, and nor is this the best place to discuss a merge, hence I have created Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals (but there is no discussion there as of yet). There is likewise no argument presented above that would justify deletion. There is however confusion as to what merge and delete means and when such an action would be justified. This is not to pre-empt the assessment of the closer, but I hope it will spare them needing to wade through my many replies above. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I reiterate: I do believe it is BLP1E and NOTNEWS. – robertsky (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we understand that. What I don't understand is how you got from that belief to wanting to delete the redirect if the article were to be merged. Andrewa (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my original nom, I put forth in gist as "merge may be preferrable to deletion", that is if deletion is not desirable by the consensus, I rather it merged. I don't think I did advocate for deleting the redirect. I am fully aware that 'merge and delete' are typically treated as 'merge' in most cases. – robertsky (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Perhaps I misunderstood. So it appears that the only contributors wanting to delete the redirect, or in any sense wanting the result of this AfD to be delete, are Bungle and Killuminator, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I just do not think it's appropriate for us to have an article dedicated to the rape and subsequent pregnancy of a 10 year old child, where it doesn't seem to have had extensive long-term coverage, a conviction or long-lasting effects. I am puzzled why anyone would want to keep this, not least "speedily". I can understand some reasoning behind wanting to mention it somewhere though, so as to not pretend it hasn't happened. @Andrewa, I respect you as an editor (a veteran, no less) and I don't want to get into a personal discussion about various matters, not least things that are, frankly, irrelevant. It's positive we can all have different views about things, as long as each expressed view is respected, and expressed respectfully. If this outcome results in the status-quo, we can consider the merits of a merge, as you propose, but as the AfD has been initiated, lets at least see where we go with this first. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly you do believe that. And I hope I have respected these beliefs. (I do not however have any respect at all for your unprovoked accusation of bad faith, and suggest you strike it out per WP:REDACT. But I am not going to raise it on your talk page as a behavioural matter. We all make mistakes.)

Agree that we need to close this AfD as the next step, in fact I still think it could have been speedied. There is no case for deletion and never was, just a lack of understanding as to what this means and when it is appropriate, which is of course exactly what Wikipedia:Merge and delete discusses and why I linked to it before, in order to save saying it all here. But nobody affected seems to have read the page, so that was a waste of time.

But I do not think there is any harm in discussing possible merges in the meantime, in a more appropriate place, and of course that's why I created Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals, but there is as yet no proposal there, so maybe that was a waste of my time too. Andrewa (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY (but rename; "unnamed" is superfluous in a title that clearly doesn't name a subject). I have added content on the Indiana Attorney General's comments and investigation. The investigation will necessarily culminate in further activity, whether that constitutes charges or exoneration, so we are past the point of this being a single news event. BD2412 T 17:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All criminal investigations necessarily culminate in further activity, this doesn't make the case any more notable than it really is. --Killuminator (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability of the case is derived from national and international news reporting on various aspects of it. The significance of the ongoing investigation is that it will lead to more coverage, although notability is already more than sufficiently supported by sources in the article. BD2412 T 20:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is of course a recently closed RM at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Requested move 6 August 2022 which resulted in not moved, and note that nom Jax 0677 stated there I am open to suggestions on other shorter names. You seem to be opposing a merge, but there has been no comment at all at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals so I suspect that the proposed merges are all dead in the water anyway. Having failed to attract any interest there, I'm reluctant to open a new RM or even a new section for informal discussion focussed on possible new names. But I guess one or the other of those is the next step. Perhaps good to wait until this AfD is eventually closed and we can then move on. Any rename should definitely go to a formal RM eventually, unfortunately. Andrewa (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is currently flagged with a Notability Template. Per removing this tag, when this AfD closes that tag should IMO be removed, unless there is ongoing discussion of a merge. (Or if the article is deleted this is of course a moot point.) Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so far the silence at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals is deafening. The only response has been negative. Andrewa (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note that the article has been substantially expanded since the start of this discussion, including expansion with new developments not reported in sources until after this discussion had begun. !Votes before those developments and the consequent expansion should be weighed lightly. BD2412 T 16:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I observe the extensions made to the article, and while not superfluous, generally are quotes or stances taken by various individuals. I am not sure this is necessarily what would be sufficient to reasonably consider this a noteworthy encyclopedic topic (at least, at this time). On the note of this as a topic, I remain uncomfortable at the fact we are feuding over whether we keep or not, a page dedicated to a very traumatic incident experienced by a young child, for which the best offered in the article is largely others' opinions. I cannot concur with the idea that we keep this (I guess this is perhaps also a heart over head matter) and would still rather we didn't, but I respect consensus and that I have conceded a merged redirect may be the lesser worse option.
  
  To Andrewa, i'd say that it's perhaps not appropriate to discuss a merge matter separately while there is an open AfD (which is not an RfD, and thank you for correcting that earlier). I would also appreciate to BD2412 that my (and others') opinions not be regarded as something to be "weighted lightly"; although I know generally what you meant by that, it's for the respective editors to decide if they wish to reconsider their !vote or not as to how much weight they carry.
  
  A rename is surely necessary and longer term, if it doesn't end the way I have !voted or similar, i'd suggest the focus could rather be on the impact of the legal judgement and incidents this then spawned or significantly affected, as opposed to the focus being on the incident(s) themselves. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The launch of a criminal investigation by the Attorney General of Indiana is more than a stance, as is, I think, the survey showing a sharp uptick of OB/GYN residents planning to leave the state in the wake of the controversy. Those are continuing impacts. BD2412 T 18:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator - The article was expanded significantly since this AFD began. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed WP:NOTNEWS. It seems most attention is derived from/due the completely unrelated Supreme Court case, not due to its own merits. The Banner talk 12:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per Bungle. Most the article is made up of the reactions of people to this event. Half of the "Investigation" section, which is being used here as support for a keep, is not directly related to it and serves only as background. It's also mostly quotations. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 16:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG. Having background is good. Containing quotes isn't a deletion reason. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, given the big changes in the article by BD2412 since it was originally nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - articles significant improvement and sourcing demonstrates it is appropriate for inclusion. Just not seeing the violation of WP:NOTNEWS here. I think the subject is significant enough to warrant a stand alone article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this made national news for quite a while. Sources are more than enough. We do really really need to keep names out of it. Given some issues with that, an edit warning or something on the article might be wise. Hobit (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like an easy keep. (a) there are tons of sources in a wide range of publications, (b) coverage has persisted from June through to the present, with multiple chapters in the story (the initial story, the right calling it a hoax, stories about proving it's not a hoax, the investigation, etc.), (c) there's every indication it will continue to be in the news as a major story about abortion at a time when abortion is a major news topic, (d) there's no obvious merge target, even if it weren't independently notable (which it seems to be). So pick one: GNG, EVENT, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Abortion in Ohio – There is plenty of verifiable information on reactions to the incident, but scant verifiable info on the incident itself. That smells of WP:NOTNEWS; what's really going on is that the incident is only a proxy for the larger US abortion debate. I'm also not seeing evidence of lasting coverage, despite Rhododendrites' assertion. There's this, which is a letter (and shouldn't be used in this article). Googling "Ohio ten year old abortion" only gives results more than a month ago. The suspect's name gives coverage three weeks ago, though. I suspect the suspect will be convicted, some reports on that, and then it goes dark. US media goes too fast, unfortunately.... Ovinus (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ovinus: Why merge to Abortion in Ohio? The abortion was performed in Indiana by a doctor licensed in that state, and the investigation has been launched by the Indiana Attorney General. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, unfortunately there's no obvious redirect target. That's a fair reason to keep rather than redirect. My rationale is that the notability derives from Ohio's new prohibition of abortion, rather than Indiana's continued permission. In any case, if the article ends up getting kept, it will need some cleanup. I'll remove the NEVENT tag for now, though, as consensus seems to be in favor of keeping. Ovinus (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Assessment of consensus is of course the responsibility of the closer, but we can help them. One way of doing this would be to either reconsider your merge !vote, or to propose a specific merge at the informal discussion at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals. Just a suggestion. You will note that so far, there is no specific merge proposal there, which the closer will probably also consider. So you are far from being the only one who wants a merge but can't say where to. Andrewa (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly an event with long-lasting impact. WP:NOTNEWS is for articles where the subject received attention for a day, and then was forgotten. This is obviously not that. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's article about the event, not the child, so BLP1E doesn't apply. I don't think NOTNEWS applies either, per above. Lasting coverage meeting GNG. No obvious redirect target either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with VersaceSpace Pawnkingthree the article qualify to be kept.Princek2019 (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very widely reported, and sufficiently distinct from the candidates for merge, perhaps. Chumpih ^t 20:34, 24 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionism (animal rights)[edit]

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

Some of this seems selectively chosen; many of the sources that I can access do not use the term "abolitionism" to refer to this philosophy (or mention it at all). I think this would be best served as a redirect to the Animal rights movement article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of the fundamental topics of the animal rights theory and I envisage this article being one of the vital articles on the subject; the "selectively chosen" part could be moderated by adding more citations from the vast literature available on this topic (will try doing this in the coming days). This is but the animal rights counterpart of the concept of abolitionism in human slavery, which underlines its importance in the movement. While the term is widely used in the works of scholars like Gary Francione, others such as Tom Regan, David Nibert, Oscar Horta, Steven M. Wise, and Gary Yourofsky subscribe to the same principle by expanding the term as "ending animal slavery," "abolishing human use of animals," "putting an end to animal exploitation," etc. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are hundreds of g-hits for the term "animal rights abolitionism", many of which are academic in nature. The article could benefit from improvement, but there's little indication it meets any deletion criteria. Risker (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Abolitionism is a very important concept in animal rights movement, and is definitely notable. If there are problems with source text integrity in the article, fix it—but deletion is not an alternative to clean-up. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I'm seeing plenty of academic sourcing, here's just a few examples [7], [8], [9]. I'm not certain I see any argument for deletion; if there's some fuzziness in what the term refers to, that's something to include in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. which I will do, and salt the mainspace to enforce AfC/ Star Mississippi 01:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goalball at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games[edit]

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

Unsourced summary page which fails WP:NOTDATABASE and which has been repeatedly moved in and out of draftspace by various editors. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notifying all of the editors who previously draftified this page: Styyx, MPGuy2824, Storchy, and DoubleGrazing. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Unsourced article that has potential. Salt due to persistent move warring by the author, who had enough chances to make a proper thing out of this, and only allow recreation via the AfC process. Talk page of the author makes it clear that they have no clue as to what they are doing, though. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and salt seems to be right call. Maybe somebody will have better luck with finding sources in Indonesian. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and salt, for the reasons given above. Got lucky and found a ref to get the medallists table started, using Google Translate to hunt for some relevant Indonesian words. Article creator already found that list of medallists somewhere, and it would be helpful if they could tell us where. Storchy (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and salt so that the article needs to go through AfC. Article is not in an acceptable state. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and salt per above. The article has potential, but as others have already pointed out more sources are needed. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2022 (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!} 20:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boli Shah[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable sources even mentioning this thing. Heyallkatehere (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heyallkatehere (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one has been a miniscule stub since 2002! No sources to suggest any notability, and looks WP:FRINGE based on Google results. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picadillo (band)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, little or no sourcing, promotional tone to an extent which overwhelms any sincere assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a band, originally created by a WP:SPA and subsequently edited by IPs and further SPAs such as Picadilloband. The prose is promotional (and in poor English), and my searches are not finding evidence of attained notability for this band. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No citation, no good references and messy description. Wazzup Carl (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Union councils of Pakistan[edit]

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

Article has numerous problems and has had them for years. Large tables are just copied from a government pdf. The article doesn't have a real introduction and it needs more sources to ensure WP:GNG. Attempted to PROD but it was removed. There appears to be two editors interested in this topic and cleaning up this article Pakieditor and Vice regent alt. Instead of deleting this should be sent to draft. Normally I would just send it there but there is a policy about sending articles to draft that are 90+ days old. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pakistan. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ ~~Send to draft so article can be brought up to quality standards and prevent it from being deleted. It appears there are editors interested in addressing these issues with the article.~~ Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy tagging @Vice regent as they commented from their alt account. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for necessary improvements. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point oppose draftify and instead prefer cleanup (meaning keep). This is an important topic and the article has the potential of being cleaned up and kept. Certainly this meets the WP:GNG guideline (sources:[10][11][12][13]). Draftifying it will mean less users visit it and hence it will languish in draft space until some bot deletes it for lack of activity.VR _talk 02:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I agree with the points raised by VR. Draftifying the article poses the risk of less contributions by newer/active editors and auto-deletion by bots. Pakieditor (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per VR and Pakieditor rationale. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok then if that's what you want to do then lets work to fix this article up quickly. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:09, 21 August 2022 (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 Breaking Bad (franchise)#Video games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Bad: Criminal Elements[edit]

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

Does a mobile game made by a licensed game farm that lasted barely a year really pass gng? Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Andre🚐 19:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Added additional sources and expanded the article to include a review of the game, and background from a previous mobile game attempt.~~ Merge to Breaking Bad (franchise)#Video games ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ has a good idea here, merging is much better than keeping. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Breaking Bad (franchise)#Video games per WP:ATD. However, the article itself doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, most if not all of the sources aren't significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. Not clear if it meets the WP:GNG but enough verifiable info to add to the main series article. Archrogue (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2022 (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!} 19:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jermain Hodge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:45, 22 August 2022 (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!} 19:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Petty[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:45, 22 August 2022 (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. ~~Neither Govvy nor~~ Das osmnezz advances a policy-based reason for keeping. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaj Andersen (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mass-created stub by a now-banned user. A WP:BEFORE search only brings the usual database results. BilletsMauves^€500 18:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't be so quick to judge this one. Part of how he earned his international call-ups is because he was in the squad when Boldklubben 1913 won the Danish Cup for the only time, played in European competition for the club. You would have to look for the more local sources which generally seem to be tough as most people don't want to look for them. And frankly, Lugnuts being banned is simply poor wikipedia politics. He was a good editor and will be missed in my opinion and that shouldn't be the case which I feel is a perfectly valid stub created under the old rules. Govvy (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Govvy. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is relevant. The challenge is that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. That is countered by producing mulitiple independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, most of Das osmnezz's comment seems to be copy-pasted into various AfDs, for example [14][15][16][17]. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of actually meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC so no evidence of requiring a separate article for this person Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Joseph (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Lake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boho Interactive[edit]

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

fails GNG. I only found a few minor mentions and two news stories on an event they organised. not enough to meet the notability criteria. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its website says that it is " a collective of Australian artists and game designers", but no notable people are involved. Only one inaccessible article is cited (what does it say?). The website continues: "We create interactive performances and games". Unless we see WP:Reliable sources writing about them, they do not satisfy the notability criteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references, including a profile of the company in New Scientist (2016) and updated the list of projects and collaborating partners. Not sure, but maybe this addresses the notability concerns? Ebb3030 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You only added one source, and in that article, Boho is just one of the companies mentioned. I'm still a *Delete*. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. I've added additional references and citations, including to HuffPostUK, the Sydney Morning Herald, UCL Culture blogs and an abstract for a research paper about the company presented at the European Geophysicists Union. See what you think. Ebb3030 (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found https://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/7753307/disaster-preparedness-youth-group-program-kicks-off-with-boho-interactive-session-in-eden/ but it's not enough. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added references to more reliable sources writing about Boho including New Scientist. Ebb3030 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrustToken[edit]

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

The majority of the sources are not reliable as per the standards., Fails notability MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Software. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is more crypto vanity spam - it lacks any actual in depth coverage, particularly outside of niche crypto blogs and non-rs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TrustToken is the developer of TUSD, a major and notable stablecoin. The article is not vanity spam. Of the currently referenced 6 sources, only 2 of them are crypto centric websites and at that those 2 are beyond the mere vanity sites and are two of the more reliable sources when it comes to outlets focusing on the topic of cryptocurrency.
or Merge Given that TrustToken seems to be a company that has contributed to some cryptocurrency industry innovations beyond their stablecoin project that are only covered in a few sources, and their main claim to notability is their stablecoins project, namely TUSD which is widely covered, it could be better to merge the article into an article about TrueUSD (TUSD).--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crypto spam indeed, and source independence is excruciating to establish with crypto. I'd expect much deeper coverage to warrant an article. Ovinus (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like most cryptocurrency anything, does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy general notability. SparklingSnail (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear notable. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:COMPANY as per sources Takahashi 2018, Khatri 2019 as well as being talked about within several academic research papers.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Venturebeat article by Takahashi is basically a rehashed press release and Khatri 2019 is by Coindesk, which is not reliable as per extensive discussion that resulted in consensus, specifically that not only is it not suitable as a source in general, but specifically it can't be used establish notability. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venturebeat was considered as reliable as per extensive discussion that resulted in consensus and is written by an independent journalist Dean Takahashi. Moreover legitimate independent coverage coverage can be established through various news and books without the use of the companies own statements or website.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us three sources that you think establish notability? They should be all of independent, reliable, and in depth. Otherwise I agree with all the deletes that this either fails notability or is way too much work to suss out the truth from reliable sources. Rockphed (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the editor claims not to be editing on a paid promotional basis, but their contribution history extremely strongly suggests otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to change your whole perception by adding only one word.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although this article needs substantial cleanup, including basic spelling and grammar fixes, the subject itself does seem to meet notability guidelines.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I the editor indeed deny being a paid in anyway because that is simply not true, not even a little bit. Of course, you are free to speculate, that is not my business. On the topic of this article, I stand by my earlier statement of Keep or Merge, while the notability of the company ~~in its own right is up to question~~ is less than their products, the product they have developed, TUSD, is notable as the 5th largest stablecoin with a billion dollar market capitalisation. So the two logical options are: 1. to either rename the page TrueUSD ~~(TUSD)~~, in line with USD Coin, Tether (cryptocurrency) and others where the coin is more notable than the company that made it, or 2. Keep the page if it is given that TrustToken meets WP:COMPANY.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the WP:GNG. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayvijay Sachan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, sources are not independent. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources are found. Imperfect Boy (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination, fails WP:SIGCOV. Shaniquagreen (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taransit[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no reliable sources for the website. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Software, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree this seems to fail notability guidelines and seems more like a means to promote the application than a topic about a notable product. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria. DavidEfraim (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2022 (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 13:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tornabuoni Art[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article has been pointed to as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST on the Robilant+Voena deletion page. This page should be deleted as promotional, with no significant coverage beyond passing mentions in relation to the art being sold through the gallery WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Business. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henson Cuffie[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC according to my searches. Google News had some squad listings. DDG has only basic stats sites, much like the ones already cited in the article. ProQuest had nothing at all and nor did Newspaper Archive. I could not find one example of a reliable source addressing Cuffie directly and in significant detail. There is nothing that we can build a meaningful biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Serruys[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Been on the cat:nn list for +10 years. Never been updated. scope_creep^Talk 15:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors don't get automatic inclusion freebies just for existing as mayors — the notability test for a mayor is not established by writing a bit of unsourced biographical background, it's established by writing and sourcing a substantive article about the political significance of his mayoralty: specific things he did as mayor, specific accomplishments he achieved as mayor, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this is just basic biographical background with none of the type of content that's required, and the list of references comprises a genealogy (which is not a notability-assisting source) and a title that doesn't provide enough information to even establish whether it's a book, a newspaper or magazine article, another user-generated genealogy, or what — even a Google search for that title only brings up various language Wikipedias and wikimirrors, with no independent verification of what type of source the title actually represents. Which means it isn't enough to cover off notability all by itself if we can't even locate basic verification of what it actually is — the primary reason we cite sources at all is so that they can be located and consulted if somebody needs to verify what they said or just wants to learn more, so a source clearly can't support notability if it's not locatable. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rufaro Machingura[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources are all trivial, nothing significant to warrant an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Zimbabwe. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nanu Mafuala[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Also, no Google news hits. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maudy Mafuruse[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [18] and [19] are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Zimbabwe. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aïcha Barbou[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Morocco. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Football players who played football matches for diffrent nations recognised by FIFA shou,d be nodoubtly notable but issuable is that there are too few souces in the artile, there is even no source fr birth date. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isa Diakese[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Apolot[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uganda. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rustems records with drawing[edit]

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

Minimally referenced article about a film not shown to pass WP:NFO. The article is so poorly written that it's practically incoherent — my favourite thing being "Amirkulov enters the movie in a cinema context", as if existing in a "cinema context" wasn't an inherent characteristic of being a movie — and much of it, in fact, appears to be a straight copy-paste translation of the sole source cited here, in defiance of WP:COPYVIO, and an article needs a lot more than just one source to clear the notability bar anyway. There is, further, no discernible evidence that "Rustems records with drawing" is actually the film's established "English title"; it also appears to be a bad transliteration of the film's original-language title rather than a title that's ever actually been used in reference to this film in English-language sources.
As I can't read Kazakh or Russian, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read those languages can find the sourcing necessary to fix this article -- but nothing stated here now is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have better sources, coherent writing or a title that's actually attested by sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Kazakhstan. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find anything more in Google. Does not meet WP:NFILM. Zeddedm (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August curse[edit]

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

Original theorie and conclusions WP:OR. No reliable source. Little-known and trivial facts are cited from year to year to consolidate the article, but there are no sources that link these events to the "August curse". We can find a few press articles on the Internet that mention this term, but most of them are based on Wikipedia and therefore not admissible. Deniev Dagun (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The theory may be superstitious and unfounded, but it clearly has a big enough presence in popular culture to be notable. Just because the articles mention the existence of the Wikipedia article does not mean that they are based on it; take this article from the New Yorker, for example. Also, some of the articles discussing the theory predate the page; take this article in the New York Times which was published in 2002; the Wikipedia page was created in 2009. Chagropango (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any issues about WP:OR should be resolved on talk page. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the linked sources, this is a real superstition. That said, the page would benefit from editing that helps refocus it on the scope of that superstition and the role it plays in Russian culture. Jmozena (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2022 (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. Despite the existence of substantial local coverage on the subject, there was a rough consensus that a standalone article is not warranted. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ecker[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Texas. Joeykai (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the 9 references currently in the article. Three are from the San Antonio Express-News, and two of those are long enough to provide WP:SIGCOV. One is from Texas A&M's student newspaper The Battalion, and although it also would fulfill the SIGCOV requirement, I'm unsure if it qualifies as an independent source. Also cited are one article each from the Detroit Free Press and the Houston Chronicle; while those are reliable, they aren't SIGCOV. The other three sources don't contribute to notability, but a Google search did turn up this article from the Norwich Bulletin, which is in-depth coverage of Ecker; given this, I believe he meets WP:NBASIC, so I vote keep. Hatman31 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the first San Antonio Express-News source has substantial coverage, none of it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia as HS state (or even national)-level achievements are just not noteworthy enough to be DUE, especially when they only receive local attention. The Battalion source is definitely inadmissible as college newspapers are never independent of the student body they belong to. The second SAEN source also has decent college coverage that is slightly more encyclopedic than HS stuff, but it is not independent of the first article and therefore does not count as a second source toward GNG. The Norwich Bulletin does have a reasonable amount of independent commentary beyond all the unusable interview material, so could be a second source for GNG, however this is greatly tempered by it being hyperlocal media. The rest of the sources are routine and/or transactional, are from the SAEN newspaper (including the mysanantonio.com one on his signing), or are press releases (e.g. the KBTX one).

The article was only made due to his being a pro baseball player, and yet none of the references that give him substantive attention are actually covering more than a sliver of his professional career, and none of them extend beyond local interest news. Just because he played in the minor leagues doesn't mean he needs a standalone encyclopedia entry, especially if the vast majority of his page is just relaying unremarkable stats. There are tons of sports websites that have exactly the same info, just not proseified like it is here; why do we need a whole page to document material that no one outside the cities he's played in has ever discussed in depth? JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. We need two pieces of SIGCOV to meet GNG (A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). The first article, from the San Antonio Express-News, is definitely SIGCOV (500+ words on Ecker). So we're currently at 1/2 for GNG. Then there's another San Antonio Express-News article that is significant, but sources from the same paper count as one towards GNG, so we're still at 1/2. The Free Press and Houston Chronicle articles are too short (only one para). I believe the mysanantonio article is from the Express-News. Then there's the Norwich Bulletin article, which definitely counts towards GNG (nearly 700 words on Ecker) and so is our second sigcov source, thus meeting GNG with multiple pieces of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also, I would like to note that coverage being local (which seems to be the reason JoelleJay wants this deleted) is completely irrelevant when trying to determine if someone meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant to GNG, but not irrelevant to PAGEDECIDE where other factors can be considered regarding suitability of a standalone page. JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to JoelleJay, I believe that the current sourcing is mostly either of local interest only or WP:ROUTINE coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both locality of coverage and ROUTINE are completely irrelevant when assessing the notability of a bio. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions, minor references, and database results; overall, doesn't appear notable. Nythar^T^.^C 00:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

500+ word articles on the subject are not "passing mentions" or "minor references." Did you even look at the sources? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 cents. Based on the sourcing presented by BeanieFan this appears to be a GNG pass. That said, there has been a tendency to exercise editorial judgment not to maintain stand-alone articles on minor-league baseball players absent something extraordinary. I don't feel strongly enough about Ecker's career to argue that a stand-alone article is needed. Cbl62 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2022 (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 Procedural close. This article was being worked on in Draft space until a new editor moved it to main space where it was immediately tagged for this AFD discussion. It has since been returned to Draft space. This title has been changed to a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules (upcoming film)[edit]

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

per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF, production has not yet begun on the film, move back to draft BOVINEBOY2008 10:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify.. Please submit to WP:AFC when you feel it is "main space ready". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Kuma[edit]

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

Many of the references mentioned seem to have only passing mentions and one is a lecture by the person. I cannot verify claims made in the article, either. It might fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as well. JML1148 (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kenya. JML1148 (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Feed notes that the article has already been deleted, and a draft, found at Draft:Alexander Cuthbert Kuma, was declined. It appears that the article is a carbon copy of the failed draft. JML1148 (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references listed provide further information about person in the article. These are credible sources from reputable publications. The article can always be improved. Skuma81 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One source is a lecture by A.C. Kuma, which is not independent of the subject, see WP:IS. The others, as far as I can tell on Google Books, appear to be only passing mentions, see WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that much of the article can be verified from the references that you have provided, either. References also need to be inline citations, which are not provided. JML1148 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided substantiates the article about the person, as it relates to his education, career, etc. Please peruse all the refences provided. Skuma81 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify - No inline references, obviously written as publicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify - This page should either be moved to a draft, or should be deleted, in my opinion. There are no inline citations. If it's notable enough, i think it should be draftified. Suasufzeb (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if A.C. Kuma would meet GNG. Some statements that would make him notable, such as being a director for the Bank of Ghana and a board member of numerous companies, are not supported by the sources listed. It's hard to verify anything without inline citations, as I don't know what I'm looking for! JML1148 (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. This is a copy-paste of a declined draft. If it can't pass AfC under another name, I don't see why it should be kept in article space. I am not a proponent of draftification in this case, either, since this would create two parallel equivalent articles in draft space which could lead to problems. Bensci54 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2022 (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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete. The trend in the discussion has been towards keeping, in line with improvements to the sourcing of the article (it now has fewer sources than at the time of the nomination for deletion, but that is mostly from a sweeping out of cruft). Note, however, that there is also not a consensus to keep; if the article is not further improved, it may be subject to another deletion effort in the future. One keep !voter has suggested that sources are to be found behind paywalls, but find the ones that are not. I also not that Andrea1861 has been particularly argumentative in pressing policy-invalid contentions, such as the inclusion of the subject in other Wikipedia articles. I would strongly suggest that they become more familiar with the actual operative policies of the project before arguing such points in the future. BD2412 T 05:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robilant+Voena[edit]

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

Promo piece on a non-notable business. Sources cited are mostly primary, and the few secondary ones offer only the briefest of passing mentions or not even that. Search only finds more of the same, plus some social media accounts, nothing that comes even close to RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Business, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page has enough notability as said by Nintendoswitchfan plus there are many other Wikipedia pages that cite Robilant+Voena as additional proofs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agostino_Bonalumi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_LaChapelle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardo_Strozzi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Caroselli

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Ross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpo_d%27aria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mat_Collishaw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Frans_van_Lint

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ena_Swansea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Veronesi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anh_Duong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Botti

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogram

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Metcalf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Morgan_%28taxidermist%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanotype

Are these below also promo pieces?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Taylor_(gallery)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadie_Coles_HQ

Is it correct the definition of art gallery? If yes, clearly Robilant+Voena can be included.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_gallery Andrea1861 (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect:

Being mentioned in other Wikipedia articles confers no notability; that would be an entirely circular logic.
Notability, which is what an AfD essentially tests, is established purely by the sources, and in light of those this articles fails by some margin.
There may well be other articles out there that should also be deleted, but this AfD is here to discuss this particular article only. Also, please see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. So what is written on Wikipedia is not relevant, has no value in terms of notability?

2. I think that you can find notability if you review: books · news · scholar...

3. Wikipedia should be democratic and equal for all otherwise is a just an aimed aggression based on subjectivity.

Thank you. Andrea1861 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sources that I couldn't, feel free to add them. One might wonder why you didn't do so during the 5+ months that this draft spent going through AfC, but of course better late than never. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be aggressive toward another Wikipedia member, I feel badly mocked by your comment as if you are trying to treat me as an incompetent. I have just asked a few reasonable questions.

Here a few new sources that clearly are not passing mentions:

https://news.artnet.com/market/mimmo-rotella-london-robilant-voena-278168

https://news.artnet.com/buyers-guide/armando-marrocco-robilant-voena-2148785

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/where-museums-go-shop-rare-works-art-180958529/

https://aestheticamagazine.com/review-of-mimmo-rotella-robilant-voena/

https://artdaily.cc/news/98360/Robilant-Voena-St--Moritz-presents-a-small-show-of-drawings-by-British-artist-David-Hockney#.YvZDXy8Rqu4

https://fadmagazine.com/2011/10/10/wim-delvoye-at-robilant-voena/

http://www.thephotophore.com/lucio-fontana-robilant-voena/

https://www.vogue.com/article/lapo-elkann-and-ahn-duong-show-at-robilant-voena-in-london

https://nordonart.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/tokyo-museum-acquires-important-manfredi-painting-from-robilant-voena/

https://www.artribune.com/arti-visive/2017/03/mostra-sergio-sarri-galleria-robilant-voena-milano/

https://myartguides.com/artspaces/galleries/milan/robilant-voena-milan/

https://www.artribune.com/report/2015/10/mostra-gianni-colombo-galleria-robilant-voena-londra/

https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/mimmo-rotella-at-robilant-voena-2015

https://www.corriere.it/cultura/16_giugno_10/paolo-manazza-arte-mostra-milano-robilant-voena-73a90718-2f3e-11e6-bb6d-75d636c22361.shtml

https://www.arte.go.it/event/tino-stefanoni-la-realta-la-magia/

https://artdaily.cc/news/147358/Exhibition-at-Robilant-Voena-explores-the-early-work-of-Armando-Marrocco#.YvZDvi8Rqu4

https://artslife.com/2016/11/18/leterna-bellezza-e-caravaggio-le-mostre-di-robilant-voena-tra-milano-e-londra/

http://www.arte.it/calendario-arte/milano/mostra-sergio-sarri-opere-1967-2017-35479

https://pietroconsagra.org/en/2018/10/01/pietro-consagra-frontal-city-1947-1967-robilant-voena-london/

https://www.youreporter.it/foto_milano_galleria_robilant_voena_catalogo_stefanoni/

https://www.infobae.com/america/cultura-america/2017/12/07/feria-art-basel-miami-beach-abrio-sus-puertas-traspasando-fronteras-del-arte/

Check also scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Robilant%2BVoena%22

Citations in books:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvnb7q3b?turn_away=true&searchText=Robilant+Voena&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DRobilant%2BVoena%26so%3Drel%26efqs%3DeyJjdHkiOlsiWTJoaGNIUmxjZz09Il19&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A9e298ff14c06470bedf2b7eaf389e5e1

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Art_in_America/HEhUAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=%22Robilant%2BVoena%22%20-wikipedia

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Artemisia_Gentileschi_and_the_Authority/JSM1su0WJ6EC?hl=en&gbpv=0

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Eternal_Baroque/W1CEoAEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Historical_Dictionary_of_Renaissance_Art/lyvCDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Alain_Elkann_Interviews/XX09tAEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Matta/-ojVsgEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Vogue_100/IrJrswEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Beyond_Caravaggio/yI0GkAEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Rick_Owens_Furniture/XFNOEAAAQBAJ?hl=en

Thank you. Andrea1861 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet looked at the book links, but just to say that up to the Google Scholar link, there isn't a single source listed here that meets the GNG standard.

This is the second time you have accused me of aggression. Please leave it at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to accuse you lightly but I felt badly treated by your comment; Additionally I just want to let you know that I have always tried to analyze and respect the guidelines other mentors have provided me with in regards to the several feedbacks I received for Robilant+Voena.

The rejections I received were always related to the low notability of Robilant+Voena; and the reason of this judgement was concerning the sources I have adopted to draft the page.

What I have tried to explain to the mentors who rejected the page - which has no background or experience of the global art market - is that commercial galleries are judged by the artworks they deal with and the exhibitions they organize. There are no galleries that have a full page article about the business itself: every mention is always related to a specific deal, discovery or exhibition. Considering that, Robilant+Voena has been mentioned in some of the most relevant magazines all over the globe (not only art/cultural magazines). Another topic that needs to be considered is the cultural and artistic contribution Robilant+Voena (or any other gallery) provides the society with: Robilant+Voena has madr, over the years, outstanding sales to some of the most important museums in the world (I suggest to you to look at their website). Don’t you think that this is important enough to be included in Wikipedia? I am sure that users who are interested in art would love to know more about this specific topic: how the National Gallery of London was able to purchase an Artemisia Gentileschi? Who sold the Principe Camillo Borghese by Gerome to the Frick Collection? This is pure knowledge, something that witness the cultural heritage of the Western world (at least). Finally: have you ever asked yourself why Colnaghi is the only commercial art gallery dealing in ancient art included in Wikipedia? There are a number of art dealers that have contributed to increase museums and private collections that are not even mentioned, people who have given to our society way more than public figures included in the Wikipedia database. I am sure that you will be able to appreciate the wonderful careers - and the works dealt by - of Carlo Orai, Samuel Dickinson, Maurizio Nobile, Coll & Cortes, etc.

I kindly ask you to try to understand that the criteria of judging the notability of a commercial art gallery is different than many business of public figures; have a look at the most significant media channel of the global art market, and look at tue top players that dominate it (where and how are they mentioned?).

I have been working on this page for almost one year, providing it with a number of significant references. It is quite frustrating that you keep saying these are not relevant just because it is something out of your area of expertise. Andrea1861 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment deletion discussions about commercial galleries can be contentious. A commercial gallery is a business and most of the press surrounding a gallery is more about WHAT and WHO they are selling, rather than the history of the gallery. I don't see any references to Robilant+Voena's place in history, just references to what and where they have sold art. They aren't doing any ground-breaking work in discovering new art and they have only been around for 20 years. I think the article may be WP:TOOSOON. - WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is needed for a commercial gallery that deals in the old masters sector to have its place in history? Discovering works of art as in 2018 by one of the few famous old master female painters as Artemisia Gentilsechi is not ground-breaking? Doing the first solo exhibition of Lucio Fontana in South Korea is not relevant? Producing English-language publications on 20th-century Italian artists, including Agostino Bonalumi (1935-2013), Paolo Scheggi (1940-71), Marino Marini (1901- 80), and Lucio Fontana (1899-1968). Publishing a series of monographs in Italian of little-known artists, including Carlo Dolci (1616-89), Cesare Dandini (1596-1657), Gregorio de Ferrari (c. 1647–1726), Marcantonio Franceschini (1649-1729) and the brothers Domenico (1668-1746) and Bartolomeo Guidobono edited by art historians such as Mina Gregori, Francesco Frangi, and Alessandro Morandotti. Andrea1861 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I went through all the references except for the New York Times reference behind a paywall. All the sources are passing mentions, basically saying certain painting/artwork is exhibited at gallery/sold through gallery/etc and proceeded to talk about said artwork. There is no WP:SIGCOV about the gallery. A few references have some writeups about the gallery but they are basically catalog of art galleries and does not pass SIGCOV. Even if the NYT article proved to have SIGCOV, the article would not have enough sources to pass WP:GNG.

For the new sources given, I went through the first 5 sources and they are all passing mentions, similar to original references. There are no direct links on the google scholar and books to mention the gallery, which make them not easy to assess. Notability is conferred by WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, mentions by other wikipedia articles does not confer notability. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply above to DoubleGrazing I think the notion of commercial gallery is not clear to most people. Notions are important to talk and judge a topic especially when you are building an encyclopaedia. Thank you for understanding. Andrea1861 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you explain exactly why you want to delete this page? Thanks Andrea1861 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Others have arleady explained it, and i have nothing more to add. On an unrelated note, i'd suggest that you read Wikipedia:BLUDGEON. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant enough. These days galleries don't go on for generations (and most never did), & "they have only been around for 20 years" is no argument for deletion. Buying and selling is what galleries do, & those dealing in old masters don't have much opportunity to have a "place in history". Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So 'they have only been around for 20 years' is no argument for deletion, but "significant enough", without citing any guideline that would suggest galleries are somehow exempt from GNG, is an argument for keeping? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they are exempt from GNG? I'm saying that argument for deletion doesn't fly. In fact there will be plenty of sig cov behind the paywalls of the serious art trade press. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think an issue here is that the acquiring museums are grabbing all the coverage, but the acquisitions themselves have been highly press worthy and a transaction has two parties. (ps User:Ceoil here, logged out temporarily as using a public computer). 109.79.7.192 (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am leaning keep but need to mull it over further. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, am not normally active on AFD, but voting to retain on three basis, which have attempted to emphasise on the now rewritten lead:

The number of significant old master exhibitions

The number of sales of major works to top 10 international museums (NG, MET, MOFA, etc)

As stated already, the way coverage of these things works, the selling gallery rarely gets more than passing mention, regardless of the volume of press coverage. As Johnbod alluded above, dealing in Old Masters is an unglamorous business (up and coming spaces dealing in contemporary art get pages and pages of breathless coverage), but in this case I think the company's achievements are significant.

Also have removed a large amount of puffery. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other things

their sale of Self-Portrait as Saint Catherine of Alexandria was covered by a number of UK daily newspapers, was described by Artnet, who would know, as "one of the most talked-about museum acquisitions of 2018" (note the emphasis on the acquisition rather than sale), and the wiki article was published a few weeks later.
Of the the Caravaggisti exhibition, the Telegraphs headline was "Beyond Caravaggio: Robilant + Voena's exhibition celebrates those inspired by the Italian master".
Both Robilant and Voena were well established in the market before their partnership.

Am a heartless delitionist, but don't think our generalist policy on companies quite works with old master galleries. Pinging WomenArtistUpdates to revisit, as they are informed and I normally respect their opinion, but voted delete above.

Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Ceoil. You certainly got rid of the extraneous stuff and it reads really well, and by well I mean neutral. I thought I had just commented and not !voted. An editor was just not getting why the page wound up here (and has indeed moved into bludgeoning). Galleries are a target for scrutiny. The article repeatedly failed AfC with no real changes made to the article except to keep piling on press releases. Getting the sale of the Artemisia Gentileschi into the lede and other clean-up does move me into keep territory. So now I want to sleep on it to figure out if I am prejudiced because of the elevation of Gentileschi into the lede :) Thanks again for the ping. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to talk again WomenArtistUpdates. Re bludgeoning have attempted here to prevent that happening again, as if the article is deleted, no doubt that wont be the last of it. As a side note, I'm finding the sources are mentioning the gallery in more detail when covering the exhibitions than the sales, linked to reasons given above. Thanks for replying so soon. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ps the Gentileschi has quite the storied provenance, which reinforces my keep even more, tbh. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article now has neutral point of view and demonstrates notability of gallery. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Johnbod and WomenArtistUpdates. Seems fine and a notable topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Fats40boy11 (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fyrishov[edit]

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

The article relies solely on primary sources. I have failed to find any reliable sources that will help the article to pass WP:SIGCOV, which is currently lacks. If anyone is able to find reliable sources that help to establish notability, then please share them below. Furthermore, due to its reliance on one primary source, it reads like an advertisement, and this has been tagged since 2018. However, if reliable secondary sources are found and subsequently means that the article is kept, then this issue could be fixed. Despite all this, the article currently fails WP:GNG and lacks SIGCOV unless someone can find significant reliable coverage. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going through relevant sources is difficult, as it's mentioned all the time in the news – a search for Fyrishov in w:sv:Mediearkivet (has most, but not all, Swedish newspaper articles from the last 10–15 years, and then some slightly older ones) 23298 hits when looking at "editorial content", i.e. not press releases and so on. I've started trimming the ad-like language, but most importantly added a number of sources. It's a major sports arena and both verifiable and notable. /Julle (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Thanks Julle for this. I am withdrawing this nomination, and we can review this again in future if necessary.

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. Consensus is roughly split between keeping the article as is, or redirecting to List of the busiest airports in Europe. Neither action requires an administrator, so can be done by normal editing after this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in the European Union[edit]

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

As I mentioned in the previously contested proposed deletion, this list mostly duplicates List of the busiest airports in Europe, and it does not present sources covering this topic area as a whole, which means it's in violation of WP:SYNTH. Melmann said 'the article is useful because EU is one regulatory area and a single market when it comes to air traffic, therefore, while there is significant overlap with Euriope, EU is not synonmous with Europe as a whole'. I think this is a reasonable argument to make, but it needs to be followed up with edits to actually prove it, and in the last few months nobody's even tried to do that. The article was only created in March 2021‎, while the EU and its airports have existed for many decades before, which sounds to me like this is just a novel WP:NOTSTATS violation. If this is a legit topic, we need to start with e.g. Air transport in the European Union first. Right now we have a handful of unsourced sentences in Transport in the European Union#Air transport. Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Europe. Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the busiest airports in Europe, mostly per nom. Deletion is okay as well. The overlap is substantial, and an interested reader can simply ignore the entries in the Europe article which aren't in the EU. Ovinus (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the busiest airports in Europe. The information is basically the same so there is no need to merge. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 20:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I continue to believe that 'Air traffic within EU' is a worthy topic area for Wikipedia to cover. While I do not contest the fact that the article is poor, and essentially excision of content from List of the busiest airports in Europe, in my experience simply being of poor quality is generally not a valid argument for deletion of an article on a notable topic (unless it's potentially a WP:BLP issue or pure spam, which is not the case here). Such arguments are against WP:DEL-CONTENT, WP:NOTPAPER and are essentially WP:RUSHDELETE. I do not think it is useful to enact policy on the fly by saying:"Right, improve within certain timeframe, or we're deleting the page." which has, in my experience, never been the case on Wikipedia.
- Further to above, I also oppose redirecting to List of the busiest airports in Europe should this article end up being deleted. Doing so is simply conflating Europe and EU, which are most definitely not the same and not interchangeable, especially when it comes to air traffic, regulation of which is a core competence of EU, and where there are material differences between air traffic in EU countries vs non-EU/EEA European countries. Melmann 21:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a worthy topic area to cover, sure. But why don't we actually do that then? Instead of this list here, and it is just not the same as coverage of this topic area. This is apparently a copy&waste magnet for anonymous spamming of largely meaningless statistics on a public website. You're basically just arguing about WP:POTENTIAL, which is fine, but when practically none has been demonstrated, it's just not a great argument. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a volunteer-only project, we cannot compel anyone to write on any particular topic. That's why we have better articles on individual Pokémon than some very notable women. If the topic of the air travel within EU is notable (which I'm taking as granted, given that nobody so far has contested it) then I do not see how it makes sense to delete the article merely because it is not yet as good as it should be. Being of poor quality has never been grounds for deletion except in very egregious situations mentioned above, which is not the case here.

Further to that, should we then go ahead and delete the List of the busiest airports in the United States because it is substantially overlapping with List of busiest airports in North America? If your argument is that such statistics lists don't belong on Wikipedia, why not make a broader argument to delete them all rather than singling out this particular instance? Melmann 22:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean poor quality has never been grounds for deletion? I've seen WP:TNT referenced in deletion discussions for decades now. And, the reason for singling out this particular instance is already explained in the nomination - it's an egregious violation of the improper synthesis policy as it stands. Is it technically possible to rescue it? Sure. But with nobody even trying to do so, we're left with 70 kilobytes of essentially claptrap masquerading as encyclopedic coverage of a topic, and no help in sight. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already offered you a sound argument on why this is not improper synthesis; EU is not the same as Europe, and EU is one regulatory area when it comes to regulating air traffic. An example of this is that the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen shut down EU airspace to Russian planes unilaterally. She did not need to rely on the authority of EU member countries' regulatory authorities, but used her own authority to do so.^[1] This, in my opinion, means that talking about EU air traffic is a worthy topic for an encyclopedia, and is not an improper synthesis. If this article was about a random assortment of unrelated countries, picked for no underlying reason, I'd agree with your synthesis argument, but that is not the case here.

In my experience, WP:TNT arguments are invoked and accepted for severe violations. Copyvios, BLP violations, vandalism, spam, hoaxes, attack pages, severe cases of sock puppetry or paid editing. I have not seen any evidence to indicate that this article is a severe violation warranting WP:TNT treatment; thus I oppose it. Melmann 15:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Ukraine invasion: EU shuts airspace to Russian planes". BBC News. 27 February 2022. Retrieved 8 August 2022.

I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the improper synthesis policy is incorrect. Just because there may exist an EU-related discussion of busiest airports somewhere out there, that doesn't invalidate the simple fact that this list is not actually based on such sources. Rather, it is anonymous editors using original research to compose a list that isn't actually sourced to anywhere else. The underlying concept of EU air transport certainly exists in the real world, but that does not imply that this is not synthesized. You could fix this problem if you cited a reference that lists the actual busiest airports in the EU in the article, but somehow we've exchanged a lot of words here over many months, and that still hasn't happened, so how can we expect that it will? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Melmann. Europe is not the EU. The EU is a notable geographical entity in its own right. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unnecessary content fork of the list for Europe. Similar such lists seem to be grouped by continent rather than economic or political zone, and there's no reason Europe can't be too. This seems to be a textbook case of WP:NOTDIR #3 (non-encyclopedic cross-categorization). Not one shred of discussion of this as a grouping has been offered or even seems to exist to meet WP:NLIST. 2603:9000:8505:319B:DF8:B0A:B645:D5A8 (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Discussion was closed prematurely by an IP with no other edits, using a deceptive sig. I have reverted per WP:BADNAC. (non-admin unclose) --Finngall ^talk 17:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion which seems to rest on whether or not "Europe" can be equated to the "European Union". If they can be, then this article can be redirected, if they are two clearly disintinguishable entities that a separate article is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with redirection—a discussion like this can become pedantic. But because members in the EU are in... Europe, there feels no need for a separate list. If people are looking for this subset of European countries, they can construct one themselves by eliminating non-EU members from the list. SWinxy (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is pedantry when it has material impacts. EU is not just a free trade area or some words on the paper, it is a supranational level of government that exercises its powers independently of the member states. When you travel by air with the EU, you're protected by a specific set of consumer rights. Should any carrier attempt to abridge your consumer rights, you can directly seek redress from EU's institutions. This is far more than merely international travel as defined by ICAO, and you can have a European flight which is not covered by EU's regulatory rules, such as Serbia to Macedonia. Thus, it is a mistake to conflate Europe and EU. Melmann 16:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it has material impacts in that context seems irrelevant. Does it have material impacts for how we (should) cover it in the articles List of the busiest airports in the European Union and List of the busiest airports in Europe? It is not necessarily the case that it is a good idea to have separate articles (especially list articles) covering proper subsets of something we already have an overarching article about. We could conceivably also create e.g. List of the busiest airports in the Schengen Area and List of the busiest airports in the Eurozone, but should we? TompaDompa (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Schengen and Eurozone are not relevant to air traffic. Do you imagine that EU and Europe is just an arbitrary distinction without meaning?
In the monetary policy/economy area you mention, we have Economy of the European Union and Economy of Europe which overlap to a large extent, but talk about two different things.
Regarding border control, we have Schengen Area, Common Travel Area, Nordic Passport Union, Freedom of movement for workers in the European Union, and Citizens' Rights Directive all of which talk about some type of movement of people in Europe. Should we delete them all because they overlap? Melmann 19:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance to air traffic does not necessarily translate to it being a good idea to have separate but largely duplicative list articles which pretty much exclusively consist of statistics. What benefit does it confer to have an article about statistics for individual airports in the European Union when that same information is contained in an article with the slightly broader scope of airports in (geographical) Europe? TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding WP:SYNTH concerns, Eurostat has comprehensive statistics related to the busiest airports within the EU (table 3). There is value in separating EU airports from European airports, since as the nominator reminds us, the European Union acts as a single market and EU institutions impact the EU air transport (ex: 1, 2), and there is a net gain in having the reader be able to have a proper list without Russian, Turkish, and other non-EU airports (about half of the top 10, scores in the top 100). Beyond the inclusion of Eurostat statistics, the other concerns of the nominator, which are valid and deserve discussion, are in my view best addressed on the respective article talk pages and in WikiProjects. Pilaz (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact we managed to find a page on the Eurostat website that replicates the topic after a month of searching does not instill a lot of confidence that WP:NOT#STATS is observed. At the same time the same site explicitly discusses air traffic with a lot of the rest of Europe, including Turkey, so the argument about excluding the rest because that's somehow proper - seems moot. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I infer from your response that your original WP:SYNTH concern is resolved. And you're incorrect regarding Eurostat, the database in question does not include Turkey (speaking of which, I'm baffled that a BEFORE and half a dozen of editors did not manage to find it). The counterargument to WP:NOTSTATS, which is not a rejection of statistics but a rejection of unexplained statistics with little to no encyclopedic utility, is countered by the informational utility that this list can provide over the Europe one - there are useful statistics for each airport such as the proportion of domestic, intra-EU, and extra-EU flights which cannot be achieved at List of the busiest airports in Europe. As WP:LISTN makes it clear, there is no current consensus on cross-categorization lists such as this one, and we've had enough precedent at AfD that if it meets recognized informational, navigational, or developmental purposes to justify keeping this article too. You think it's indiscriminate, I think it's useful. I mean, do you really think List of the busiest airports in the United States should be let go or merged with List of the busiest airports in North America? Pilaz (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, it's not resolved by the existence of one sole source on the planet that discusses the same topic. Each and every piece of documentation about sourcing in this project talks about sources in the plural, and that is not an accident. If we find nobody else in the world who's doing a comparison of EU airports other than the one official body which is probably formally tasked with doing that anyway (making it suspiciously close to a primary source, too...), and Wikipedia is basically copying and pasting one of their lists (while sprinkling in arbitrary anonymous edits, as usual) without actually putting it in some sort of a context (for which there are various references), that's hardly the definition of a useful part of an encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your original WP:SYNTH concern (which, in my view, was not SYNTH) was that "it does not present sources covering this topic area as a whole". List of the busiest airports in the United States relies on one source, the FAA. Why can't this article rely on a single reliable source too, Eurostat, like most list articles? Pilaz (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair question! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have taken a few hours out of my Saturday to expand the article and harmonize it with List of the busiest airports in the United States. More specifically, I have found an overarching source, Eurostat, (factsheet, databases) that covers the list as a whole, which was a key concern of the nomination since previous yearly tables used individual data from each airport (sidenote: a quick survey of "List of the busiest airports in X" shows most articles having that flaw, including List of the busiest airports in Europe, but whatever). Additionally, I have brought the list up to date to 2021, and I have added tables for airport traffic based on domestic flights, intra-EU flights, and extra-EU flights, making this article fundamentally different from List of the busiest airports in Europe. Finally, I have addressed the nomination's concerns regarding Transport in the European Union#Air transport by expanding the section somewhat and sourcing it to EU and academic sources. During my search, several sources turned up with charts dedicated to the busiest airports in the EU (excluding therefore Russia, Turkey and other non-EU associated countries): the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (p.54), The Guardian, etc. although it is worth noting that when specialized publications mention airport business in Europe, they tend to more often do it in EU+ format (EU + Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and UK), EU+ plus Turkey, or Europe as a whole, which raises questions as to where to cut off a page about EU airports traffic: do we want EU-only airports? (we can). do we want EU+ airports? (we can too, without tarnishing the EU-ness of the list). To me, the question of whether we can separate Europe and EU is yes, regardless. With that being said, over 1 billion passengers transited through EU airports in 2017 alone (European Commission). That's nothing to scoff at. Given that we have similar nested articles on the other side of the world, with List of the busiest airports in California, List of the busiest airports in the United States, and List of the busiest airports in North America, I see no harm done to the encyclopedia in having the same three layers with List of the busiest airports in France, List of the busiest airports in the European Union, and List of the busiest airports in Europe. Pilaz (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The EUASA source seems the best so far to actually reinforce the concept, it shows an addition on top of this data source concept, although it's still an agency directly connected to the EU. The Guardian's illustration is directly sourced to Eurostat, but let's say it contributes to a general impression of notability for the concept. A lot of this is sort of "in-universe"... and I'm not sure if the precedent of other copy&paste lists justifies having more and more. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to previous editors involved in this discussion before the overhaul, especially now that this article has additional material that the Europe article does not have: Ovinus, Helloheart, Melmann, Presidentman, SWinxy, TompaDompa. Pilaz (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of the busiest airports in Europe Bruxton (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOR is a core policy, and it is uncontested that this content is OR, so it cannot be kept, including in the history. Sandstein 17:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest buildings in the United States[edit]

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

This list is entirely original research. It appears to have been computed from coordinate data (as far as I can tell -- the map doesn't seem to offer the area itself) entered in an openly-editable database. Many of the entries that I checked were edited by a username similar to that of the main contributor to this article as well. Moreover, that these are in fact "the largest" is also unverifiable -- there's no way to tell if entries are missing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: AfD created on behalf of User:35.139.154.158, per request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC) )[reply]

Note I think I am the lone author of the article. It goes against WP:OR and probably a whole slew of other policies. You might be able to find some sources to support the existence of the article, but I am not sure whether they would support the contents. I don't really care if it is deleted as I copied the data to my computer.
I would say WP:CALC applies to the surface area calculations, as the area of a 2d shape is something learned in primary school. I will claim the list is accurate/comprehensive as of ~2017/2018, but that is obviously not WP:VER to anyone else.
I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. List of largest buildings is in terrible shape as it is nowhere near comprehensive and many of the sources are published/paid for by the architect/owner of the buildings. It would probably benefit from the same set of eyes reviewing this article. Karsonkevin2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that honest response. Certainly List of largest buildings also needs scrutiny, for similar reasons: I've linked this discussion on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of largest buildings, duplicative bad copy. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are obviously WP:CALC considerations to be made for the footprints of the buildings themselves, it doesn't seem like there is a reason why it'd be too hard to find sources on the size of individual buildings. The topic of largest buildings by footprint itself seems to be pretty well covered around the WWW (some more detailed information is here as well). This is just a cursory look from a couple minutes of searching on Google; but even then, you can see there is a lot of information about the subject of big-ass buildings. It's true that this article is kind of unimpressive as it stands (it would be nice to see citations to some stuff like what I just linked, for example) but I don't think deletion is a solution to this problem. jp×g 10:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The question I have is whether or not redirecting this article to List of largest buildings is a good idea if that article is in worse shape than this one is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rewrite from ground up. I think a list like this would be quite noteworthy in itself, yet still, it needs to be based on reliable sources. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Follwup comment from nominator. The two keeps above make no sense. Even by the article creator's own admission, this list has been, from its very inception, entirely OR. It cannot be kept. "Keep but rewrite from the ground up" isn't a realistic !vote; you might as well just delete it at that point. There even isn't any point to redirecting, since every single bit of sourcing comes from UGC, none of it can ever be used, so the article history has no use itself. Nothing here has any salvage value. Morever, Jpxg's sources are no good. A few listicles doesn't really help much for determining notability for something like this, especially as a list of superlatives. The "more detailed" source is just a government report giving estimated totals for the whole country, not broken down by individual buildings. Even worse, those lists are conflating vastly different metrics of "large", be it by volume, footprint, floorspace, or what have you. Any list of "largest" is going to be difficult to justify between the various issues of metrics, sourcing, notability, completeness (how do we know that these are actually the largest?), and OR (exactly how do we decide if this is two separate buildings or one connected building? etc). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't think the https://eia.gov link is a "listicle", but even if it were, WP:RS does not distinguish between "articles devoted to a topic" and "articles devoted to a topic that contain lists". With respect to there being ambiguity between multiple criteria -- "it would be nice if the article had more sections" isn't a deletion rationale. The reason I am being such a hard-ass about this is because an AfD is the primary means by which the notability of a topic is determined. Your argument that it could simply be deleted here and recreated later does not hold up in practice -- what would happen is that it would be instantly nominated for deletion (possibly under WP:CSD) on the grounds that this AfD closed as delete. It is true that this article is not written very well, but what I'm saying is that the subject of "the largest buildings in the United States" -- whether by square footage, by building footprint, or by volume -- is a notable one, and it is worth having an article about. jp×g 08:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have linked eig.gov twice. And in neither case to anything that looks like a useable source for a 'list of largest buildings in the United states'. That would seem to require (a) data on specific buildings, and (b) clear and unequivocal statements that they were in fact the 'largest' (however defined), unless it could be shown that the source included sufficient data on all buildings which might plausibly be candidates.

To be perfectly clear about where we are as of now, the existing article is pure WP:OR. The creator of the article has acknowledged this. If the article is kept, we are required by policy to remove all the WP:OR. Which will leave a list of zero elements. Which amounts to de facto deletion, with nothing but a misleading title. Anyone could, per existing policy, have simply deleted the WP:OR at any stage. I actually contemplated doing this myself, as soon as the extent of the WP:OR became apparent. I shall do so, if the article is kept. Wikipedia is not a webhosting service for hobbyist research.

And no, deletion of an article does not in of itself prevent the creation of a new one, should proper sourcing later prove to be available. That has never been policy. The immediate solution though, for people claiming that such sourcing exists is to provide actual evidence that it does. Sourcing sufficient to create a list of largest buildings, and sufficient to show that the inclusion of such buildings in the list is merited. If the subject is 'notable' per Wikipedia standards, the necessary sourcing must be provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest buildings per above. Excelse (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish that the topic meets WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As established above, and confirmed by the page creator and more or less sole editor, the entirety of this article is comprised of WP:OR, and so should be deleted on those grounds alone. Whether or not a Redirect should then be created to List of largest buildings or a new sourced article on this topic be created is kind of besides the point, as in either case the WP:OR would need to be removed first, which in this case would mean deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lands squarely within the original research policy as well as "Reasons for deletion" (#6, 7, and 8) that is also policy. Even "if" OpenStreetMap was a reliable source advancing notability, examples such as Academy Sports and Outdoors Distribution Center‬ (random pick) shows existence only. 227 instances of the same source count as one towards notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2022 (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 comedians from Quebec. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quebec comedians[edit]

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

Not too dissimilar to List of comedians from Quebec to warrant another list. – Meena • 07:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Canada. – Meena • 07:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of comedians from Quebec. Categorization is better than alphabetical ordering with a list of this size. Chagropango (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of comedians from Quebec as per Chagropango Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as duplicate article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Liliana ^(UwU) 23:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stratus Group[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:SIGCOV Chagropango (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this time I am happy to support deletion. Some companies of the same name have significant coverage in books, this is an example. However as that company is described as Iranian rather than Brazil, they appear different companies and not seeing any good coverage of this particular enterprise. The article sniffs of a puff/vanity piece to me, and without sufficient sources to convert it into a quality article I support deletion. However, given this is a Brazillian company, happy to change my mind if anyone finds sources in Portuguese MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z Sculpt Entertainment[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:SIGCOV Chagropango (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not for promotion of non-notable companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victorians Party[edit]

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

Party is defunct. They pulled out of the 2022 Victorian state election today (via a press release) due to finance issues & failing to attract donors. It has been reported in media (herald sun, paywalled). Mayor Oscar Yildiz's only reference to being in the party is his twitter bio, while his website & communications don't use any party logos or even name it (he himself doesn't have a wikipedia article, making this a non-notable defunct party launched by a non-notable politician). The stated party website is now dead. With only one reference for their creation, one reference for their failure, with no actual representation in a political body, this is a non-notable article and should be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Per nom, the article's subject does not meet the requirements for notability. Col tom (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom. De Guerre (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2022 (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 05:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Reikartz[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement, nothing notable stated in the article. Appears to be a WP:MILL hotel. No independent sources showing any coverage, only the hotel website and other travel sites. MB 03:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, and Ukraine. MB 03:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find this, but not sure if it is independent or really "news", it may be more based on a press-release by the hotel. MB 03:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it seems WP:MILL. The one notable comment in the (unlisted) press release, "its architectural ensemble is made in the style of classical Western European architecture", wouldn't be sufficient to make the hotel notable. And that comment isn't even in the article. The information here can and should be found on travel sites, and there are quite a few of those which list it. Radzy0 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like to see more participation from veteran AFDers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing exceptional here. I was a little bit tempted to keep by the fact that the remarkable array of services listed include Free Wi-Fi, Laundry, Luggage storage, and Parking, but I overcame the tempation. BD2412 T 01:27, 21 August 2022 (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 10:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mint (credit cards)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per consensus at RfD. Pinging participants who may want to join this discussion. Shhhnotsoloud, Mdewman6, ClydeFranklin. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and Economics. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andre🚐 00:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This page has been subject to previous AFDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MINT (2nd nomination))
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I'm impressed with this one for sure. I kept think it was the Mint owned by the TurboTax people, even as I read the article. Fun and sneaky! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G4. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tylerbrizyy (Singer)[edit]

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

Rapper does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. None of the sources are independent. This is last attempt at creating the article was a cut and paste move from Draft:Tylerbrizyy. I would not be opposed to a speedy delete and would support a WP:SALT of the article. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Africa. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has already been deleted through AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tylerbrizyy, and could have been tagged CSD G4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Liz, I will tag it as such and will leave this up for now until the CSD is either accepted or rejected. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:40, 20 August 2022 (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 13:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

License block[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2012, now less than 500 bytes. I'm not knowledgeable on this subject but at face value it looks like it should be deleted. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 20 August 2022 (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 Northwestern University. ✗plicit 00:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern University Graduate School[edit]

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

Only outside reference is foreign language. Notability? Needs more references Wiseoleman17 (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. Many of our college articles are sourced to primary sources because they are readily available. But that doesn't mean they are not notable. Searching finds lots of mentions, but it is time consuming to go through them because a lot just says somebody graduated from or is teaching there. I quickly found this about an program with Arthur Young, and this about a new dean. I'm sure with time and effort, a good article could be developed. MB 02:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not especially notable. Lacks outside references--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Northwestern. Andre🚐 23:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Northwestern. --Bduke (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and/or redirect to Northwestern. Insufficient grounds for a standalone article on this particular faculty of the university.MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge and/or redirect to Northwestern. It can just have its own section in the main Northwestern article. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kodes (Turkish rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. The article has been deleted four times on Turkish Wikipedia due to the same concerns. Keivan.f^Talk 01:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I support deleting the article given Turkish Wikipedia notability guidelines are similar to those on the English Wikipedia and the article has previously been deleted. I also note a preliminary search does not indicate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Happy to change my submission if further sources are provided, however if Turkish Wikipedians did not have any luck, then I think it is unlikely we will here. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aga B[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. The article has been deleted on Turkish Wikipedia for the same reason. Keivan.f^Talk 01:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Some low-quality sourcing going on here. Of the five in the article, I'd only consider refs 1 and 3 (Bianet and Vatan) to reliable. Both of these are interviews which heavily rely on quotes by the subject himself, so they aren't independent. Another interview from a reliable publisher can be found here, but again, this can't be used for notability. There is a 2 sentence long announcement of one of his concerts that isn't significant at all. Hürriyet has included 5 sentences about him in this source about 4 singers, which would be borderline enough for SIGCOV. Apart from that, as far as RS go, there are only a few mentions ([21], [22]). Doesn't appear to meet the GNG. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Ukraine invasion: EU shuts airspace to Russian planes". BBC News. 27 February 2022. Retrieved 8 August 2022.

[1]