Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 29	December 31 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patra Vaitha Nerupondru[edit]

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

This film has no reliable reviews or much coverage. The only sources found were: this, this and this (none of which seem reliable). The article cites one review but given that no other article uses that review site (Movie Laundry), it is likely unreliable. This is not a review but a preview or summary of the film's plot.

This film was a draft but not sure how it passed AfC and became an article. DareshMohan (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu. Skynxnex (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:16, 31 December 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!} 06:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Satan, His Psychotherapy and Cure by the Unfortunate Dr. Kassler, J.S.P.S.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article on a book sourced only to Amazon.com and Goodreads. BD2412 T 23:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 23:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the first AfD need to be added to the article, but this appears to be a case of neglect rather than non-notability. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: The previous AfD was twelve years ago. It is apparent that no one cares to improve the subject. BD2412 T 15:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then since it's fixable, please withdraw the nomination and go do so. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not convinced that the sources cited as a basis for keeping from a less scrupulous time stand up today. BD2412 T 18:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have some modern source analysis, then.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a one-paragraph review in the May 15, 1982 Library Journal which essentially pans the book. That's all. Keep thanks to Jfire. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book was published in 1982; most reviews are offline or paywalled. But it was reviewed in:

The New York Times
Kirkus
Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Review
L.A. Times
Hartford Courant
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Chicago Tribune
The Sydney Morning Herald

and quite a few others. Those were all prior to the book's adaptation into a screenplay, which conferred additional coverage. Jfire (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive reviews. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times reviews cited above are enough to qualify for notability. BruceThomson (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to the good work of Jfire. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to several reviews, including the New York Times and LA Times. Archrogue (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geographers on Film[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, could find nothing other than database listings and non-independent sources. Tagged for Notability for Twelve years.

PROD removed with "This is a significant film series." with nothing added or cited to prove that statement. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Geography, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to American Association of Geographers, not seeing the sourcing which would support notability either on the page or in a search although given the age of the subject there may be significant coverage on paper somewhere (if someone finds that please ping me and I will be happy to reevaluate my assessment). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the subject passes WP:NFILM as it historically notable. --Wil540 art (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, definitely passes the minimal for WP:NFILM LloydPlayz (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.loc.gov/collections/geographers-on-film/about-this-collection/ "The Library of Congress presents these documents as part of the record of the past." Notable enough to be in the Library of Congress, then notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 09:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Association of Geographers. Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources, to warrant a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep US Library of Congress preservation meets WP:NFO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending merge to Maynard Weston Dow, which has a draft in progress. The most substantial source for the film collection appears to be Martin, Geoffrey J. (2013-01-01). "Maynard Weston Dow (1929–2011) and "Geographers on Film"". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 103 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1080/00045608.2012.732480. ISSN 0004-5608.. However, that article is primarily a biography of Dow, which only secondarily covers Geographers, as his major work. Clearly Dow himself meets our notability bar, but I am not convinced there is enough coverage in reliable sources to justify a standalone article on Geographers in the long run. The fine content that 7&6=thirteen and others have done on the article should be preserved via a merge once the entry on Dow exists. Jfire (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this appears to pass WP:NFO#4 with the United States Library of Congress preservation The American Association of Geographers (AAG) and the Library of Congress are now the curators of the collection, and have preserved and digitized the films contents. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the addition of reliable sources coverage so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)23:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination per WP:HEY DonaldD23 talk to me 15:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Zuhro[edit]

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

We must note that WP:SPORTBASIC requires that [sports] biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. This was not met so User:Onel5969 correctly moved the article to Draft:Reza Zuhro. This was then copied and pasted back into mainspace with no improvements. I have done a comprehensive WP:BEFORE. All of the 10 hits in Google News are just squad list mentions or passing mentions in a match report. Nothing good in an Indonesian source search either. Denpasar Update looks like a decent source but it's actually referenced to his club's Instagram page so does not count as an independent source. Fails WP:GNG and possible WP:TOOSOON; I would recommend deleting the mainspace article but retaining the draft. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 07:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azat Köşekov[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable party functionary. A WP:BEFORE search in both English and Kazakh returned almost nothing. ~~Fails~~Does not pass WP:NPOL and fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kazakhstan. Curbon7 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. We have almost always deleted the articles of minor parties' officials; this party garnered less than 2 % in the last election. What's good for the Greens are good for the QHP. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sebihan Mehmed[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable mayor. There is some coverage in Bulgarian, but this coverage does not appear to be significant. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a town of <9,000 pop is not notable under WP NPOL and a search in Bulgarian doesn’t indicate a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. : As Mccapra said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a rural county with less than 9k residents. There are many villages in New York (state) that are larger. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom etc --Devoke water 08:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist, especially mayors of small towns — the notability bar for a mayor is not passed just by stating and single-sourcing the fact of her existence, but by writing and sourcing a substantial article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the community, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs in Botswana[edit]

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

Topic doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Africa, and Serbia. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- couldn't find any relevant sources, failing WP:GNG. ReadItAlready (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are approx 1000 Serbs in Botswana according to Reddit, of whom 600 odd are in a Facebook group. The sr.wiki article says they number 350 and the sources supporting that article don’t look sufficient for en.wiki. Mccapra (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on quality grounds rather than notability. A Serbian Orthodox Church apparently exists in Botswana (1) and might be evidenced in reliable sources. It is possible that there may be sources in Serbian? At the moment, there is nothing worthwhile to retain here beyond some rather questionable claims. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are several such sources. A few that I found:
I don't know whether the article is worth saving, and I don't know what these sources say except what machine translation tells me. But they do exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RTS source appears to be about an episode of a documentary series, focusing on Serbs living in Botswana. The BBC source is also a bit human-interest in focus for my liking. My sense is that while these are reliable sources, they don't necessarily amount to significant coverage of Serbs in Botswana as a group. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch Pro Controller[edit]

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

I don’t think we need a article on a controller for a console Qwv (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. Qwv (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this probably needs to be fleshed out a bit more or this nomination is going to be quick failed and closed. Please expand on whether or not it meets the WP:GNG, if you have a WP:MERGEREASON, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Here are reviews from TechRadar, IGN and PCMag, which is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason for deletion stated outside a thought we shouldn't have an article about this. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per criterion 1, no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently no one else agrees with me so I think it should be kept and closed I am sorry for making this I did not expect that no one else would agree with me Qwv (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, most people's reasoning is that you didn't even give a reason for deletion. You didn't give anyone anything to agree with. If you had some sort of well-reasoned argument that it should be merged into Nintendo Switch or Joycon, you might have had a chance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 31 December 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. Daniel (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Mlayeh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Avilich (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:48, 31 December 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. Daniel (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nada Zanina[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Avilich (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:48, 31 December 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. Daniel (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loreta Lulaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kosovo. Avilich (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:47, 31 December 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. Daniel (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hasna Ben Amor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Avilich (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:47, 31 December 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unsourced for 8 years Avilich (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Avilich (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well written and can be improved with additional sources. Curntag (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Curntag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock[reply]

Please provide evidence of these alleged additional sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only fails WP:GNG but is also a WP:V fail due to being a massive original research dump. As these are violations of Wikipedia policies, I would oppose any attempt to merge and I would prefer outright deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:47, 31 December 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 (tending towards, but not quite reaching, keep). Stifle (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drummerworld[edit]

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

NN website, promotionalish in nature, no claims of actual notability. UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Websites, and Switzerland. UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page before I edited it was mostly promotional fluff, and after my edit is incredibly sparse. Cursory Google revealed no outstanding coverage I could add. 🎜Oktavia Miki🎝_talk 20:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep: Sources from Choice Reviews [1], the DRUM! Magazine source already present (along with various other listings in yearly awards), and Percussive Notes ("Percussion on the World Wide Web" V. 45, I. 3 where it is discussed as the "most popular site for drummers available"). It's also heavily used as a reliable source for biographies on Wikipedia (and in the real world), so as with most periodicals and such, its use becomes its notability (e.g., it's listed on MERLOT [2]). Finding sources about sources is annoying, but ask, and I can hunt down more about this notable subject. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not look notable or encyclopedic. David10244 (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need a better explanation than WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources presented by User:Why? I Ask make it an easy pass of GNG. Frank Anchor 03:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Frank Anchor. With Why? I Ask's sources the article passes WP:GNG. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 01:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting a couple of contributions which have no basis or reference to policy, clear consensus exists below to delete. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Chorley[edit]

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

Currently sourced only by primary sources and/or brief mentions. Searches did not turn up a single in-depth source about this pilot, was tagged for notability, which was removed with an WP:OSE argument. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Aviation, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most 'notable' case for Chorley is that he was an airline pilot flying the Concorde plane, which isn't very notable on its own. I don't see much of "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" on the article or in internet searches absolutely required to minimally justify a bio article. The article looks like it has original research, like the "Live Aid" section which the two accessible sources don't mention Chorley at all, seeming to assume he was the pilot for Phil Collins, or "flew all over the world" in which the source does not mention this[3]. The most prominent source is primary, the Ansty Group interview. Most if not all the other sources sources are not passable as a combination of reliable or significant/in-depth. Two sources, aviation enthusiast websites, only mention that Chorley was a captain. To the article's credit, other than the interview, the sourcing is all secondary unlike some BLP and bio articles that get put up for deletion where primary sources are rife among other issues. However, the lack of notability as far as an encyclopedia or Wikipedia policy is concerned, in the real world or attempted to be demonstrated in the article; the lack of reliable, in-depth, secondary sourcing; and the evident original research do not make a strong case in favor of this article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (Keep) Firstly, I would like to thank you for your input it certainly raises some important issues. However, the deletion of this page would mean the subsequent deletion of other Concorde Pilot Pages. Captain Chorley set numerous supersonic world records and was also a route check captain making him both a senior Concorde pilot and a notable aviator within the industry. Furthermore, his arguably remarkable career which was involved in Live Aid, Military exercises and being a private pilot for prominent individuals more than qualifies his position for notability. In addition to this many Concorde pilots have Wikipedia pages and both primary and secondary sources to these pages are being consistently added. In the case of this page, considering it’s regular refinement and reference development I argue this page should remain active and be given a time period in which more sources can be added. The issue of notability and source gathering is a moot point and would need to be addressed on thousands of individuals if this page is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunsetlilac (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any independent sources. Much of what is claimed in the article cannot be found in the sources listed, nor do I find biographical info elsewhere. Claims like being involved in LiveAid are completely unfounded, by my research. I'm just not sure what the motivation is for such claims but without sources they need to be removed. Once the un-sourced info is removed we are limited to a few British Airways magazines, it seems. Lamona (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t find the argument persuasive that we should justify a “Keep” on this article simply to avoid scrutiny on other pages of pilots. This is not appropriate justification. This person has had a nice career as a pilot, and the Concorde was undoubtedly a notable aircraft. But that doesn’t mean everyone who piloted it merits their own Wikipedia page. Unless valid RS secondary coverage is brought forward justifying a keep, I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is well referenced, and details a long aviation career, including breaking several avionic records. This definitely falls under the WP:BLP requirements. Mithurjan (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saucysalsa30's reasoning. This article does not contain significant coverage from enough reliable references to justify a WP:GNG pass. Also the records appear to be rather narrow as they are between specific airports, such as London-Heathrow to Cairo International Airport. If the specifics were broader (ie: transatlantic flight or reaching a highest overall speed in a passenger aircraft) then then they would be significant enough to demonstrate notability. I just don't see how records for supersonic flight between a random selection of commercial airports among a rather small group of pilots flying commercial supersonic jets means that they automatically are notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is simple. It doesn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he set supersonic world records. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mithurjan, Davidgoodheart: you say that he is notable because of world records; I don't see any sources for that - could you provide some links? Including the name of the award? And Lightburst we need a few substantial and reliable sources, independent of the subject of the article. I'm not finding them and none of the ones in the article are good. Do you have some? Lamona (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation#ONGC Petro Additions Limited. Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ONGC Petro-Additions[edit]

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

PR Based news, non notable company. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: The sources seem reputable enough to pass WP:NCORP. Also, the prime minister of the country inaugurated one of their plant, so it must be a big deal that was reported on by the national press. Mottezen (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prime minister inaugurates!! It's not a notability guideline. I request you to please share sources which make you think that this company is notable. Lordofhunter (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In only rare cases any prime minister of a country inaugurates any company and it is not common that any person will open a company and invite Prime Minister to inaugurate it. I think this company is big that's why it is inaugurated by Prime Minister of India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please share the guideline which says that whatever prime minister will inaugurate, will be considered notable and the company has nothing to do with independent coverage. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is void of policy- LordVoldemort728, as you sure know notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from a prime minister's visit. VickKiang (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge those defending this article to concentrate on significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which this company seems to have and is needed by the general notability guideline, rather than on who inaugurated one of their plants, which is irrelevant to Wikipedia guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They've taken out bonds, bought a subsidiary and had the PM pay them a visit. Mostly routine stuff, all of it PR worthy. I don't see any books giving a detailed history of the company, any news articles other than what I mentioned and there has been little to no critical attention to their business practices in peer-reviewed journals. Just a company doing what they do it seems. Long way off from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: putting aside my comment on the PM’s visit, my keep !vote stands. Contrary to what was asserted by the nominator, none of these sources are “PR-based”, and this company is notable. Mottezen (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But sources are required for it. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This article belongs as a draft so that more research can be done and sources added. IRL the company is notable, but not enough thought or effort has been put into doing the research and explaining why that is. Send it back to draft so that additional work can be done, then re-submit through the AfC process. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. RPSkokie (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent solution. There is even a section for it under Oil_and_Natural_Gas_Corporation#ONGC_Petro_Additions_Limited, which would benefit from a few citations. Striking previous !vote and endorsing merge. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oil_and_Natural_Gas_Corporation#ONGC_Petro_Additions_Limited to incorporate citations and Delete. None of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey's Fish House[edit]

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

I am unable to find any source that suggests this is more than "just another restaurant". There are 37 fish restaurants in the USA (per the category that this article was recently in) which are listed in Wikipedia. No doubt there are also some that have never made it into that category. Only 8 are in California. Where is the evidence that this restaurant is sufficiently notable to be listed? I suggest that it just isn't there. (And I have looked for it.) The article was tagged for lack of notability in December 2018 and the tag was immediately removed by the article creator - relying, it appears, on just their point of view. No discussion or additional supporting evidence was put on the talk page. There was no input from other editors - which would have been helpful. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth adding, perhaps, a quote from a newspaper article the mentions this restaurant "It’s not fancy. But it’s ours." Does that confirm that there is nothing special about this restaurant?[4]ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that being fancy (and fancy isn't a synonym with "special") or not has no bearing on notability. Many famous restaurants are not fancy. I haven't decided about this one yet but it's better sourced than most restaurants that show up at AFD (a couple of books, featured on a TV episode. It's maybe a bit more WP:BROCHURE-y than is ideal but if the sourcing meets WP:NCORP and/or WP:GNG, then it's clean up instead of deletion. There's been even some coverage from newspapers outside of CA: [5] in Lincoln Star, Nebraska, which is a bit unusual for restaurants, in my experience. Skynxnex (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Guy Fieri's tv show and the award from the Californian (along with another article) and Fodor's travel listing should be enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The californian newspaper passes GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NORG, not just GNG. Restaurants are a difficult topic because there's an entire industry build up around reviewing restaurants, from "influencers" to travel books, TV and Michelin stars. If we apply NORG criteria, we require a minimum of two sources which may be classed as "deep or meaningful" coverage that contains in-depth information on the company and must also include "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". For me, it can be argued in a number of ways but lots of questions remain unsatisfactorily unresolved. For example, does a review of the restaurant (food, service, facilities) meet the criteria given that there are reviews for restaurants just about everywhere these days begging the question, what is significant anymore about a review? Does an appearance on a TV show meet the criteria? What about an award? For me based on the entirity of our notability guidelines, common or garden reviews are not significant - nor are awards by newspapers or restaurant associations which are not global in nature. I also don't see how the TV show helps to establish notability seeing as how it is entirely promotional. If it can be shown that this restaurant received a *significant* review or received a significant award, I'll revisit my !vote but I'm unable to locate anything, topic fails NORG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting an exceptional 3rd time, to give participants the chance to react to HighKing's arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd delete the current article on TNT grounds: it's well-referenced promotional material, and if the advertising (and trivial stuff; we can't seriously give the menu) is removed, there will be nothing left. But more generally, I want to support HighKing's concerns. Every half-way reasonable restaurant that ever existed will have had independent reviews in solid, probably regional newspapers at some point, and probably won an award or two. People like to go out and eat, so writing reviews about restaurants is part of a regional newspaper's job. There are also loads of awards available for catering outlets. A restaurant is much more likely to attract media attention than a newsagent, an archaeologist or a dentist. We can always find good referencing in travel guides supporting the idea that a restaurant has a nice ambience or good decor or great food; that's what travel guides exist to do. But is this referencing enough? Do we want Wikipedia to degenerate into a listing of fish-bars? I do think that restaurants and food outlets need to stand out of the crowd quite dramatically in order to merit a Wikipedia article. Perhaps a good indicator is whether there's anything to write about a restaurant apart from "is located at X and serves good food", and relaying the advertising-speak of a travel guide. Is there some exceptional coverage for a restaurant beyond what we can find for everywhere? Elemimele (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is the section WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS at WP:NORG which provides some pointers such as discounting brief and routine reviews (including Zagat), being independent, etc, but it still falls short of resolving many of the issues surrounding restaurant notability in general. There were a few attempts in the past to write guidelines specifically for restaurants but none were adopted. For example WP:REST HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reading the points raised above reinforces my view that this is "just another restaurant" - the sort of establishment that may be nice to eat in, but is not particularly unusual. Given that there are "155,448 Single Location Full-Service Restaurants Businesses in the US in 2022"[6], what proportion of those do Wikipedia need to list before we have an overwhelming number of articles on restaurants. And this only considers the USA – what about the rest of the world? If we look for (possibly) the most well-known rating of restaurants (the Michelin Guide), within the USA there are 176 with one star, 33 with two and 14 with three.[7] That's a total of 223, or 0.14% of all restaurants. Looking just to the Michelin Guide is probably an over-restriction, but I think this is a starting point: consider which establishments are undoubtedly notable. Then we need to find another mark of notability that does not allow huge numbers to make the grade. What we particularly want to avoid is restaurants that are favourites of editors ending up here, justified by reviews that can be found for most places, whilst others that do not have a convenient Wikipedia editor amongst its clientele get ignored. (This tendency would be just the result of normal human nature - please do not infer any more out of this point.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think that WP:NOTGUIDE has some relevance here - certainly when considering what proportion of restaurants should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:12, 31 December 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 The Coming. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Vibe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG by having no significant in-depth discussion of the song in WP:SECONDARY sources. Discogs.com and whosampledwho.com are not reliable sources because they fail WP:USERG (see WP:ALBUMAVOID for a list of unreliable sources.) The closest we come to having a reliable source is this album review which has a paragraph about each song on the album. The song is discussed in the context of the album; everything found in that source can be contained in the album article. Redirect to The Coming. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as nomination says it. There are more album retrospective articles to be found (including enough that could maybe justify making an article for The Abstract and the Dragon; will have to look into that later) which mention the song, but never for more than the one already in the article does. Much easier to include that in a parent article. QuietHere (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Blackjays1 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Coming.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the End of the Night (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found only one review on Rotten Tomatoes; needs two or more reviews in order to pass NFO and NFSOURCES. I did a WP:BEFORE and found no suitable/reliable sources or reviews to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews at DVD Talk [8] and CineMagazine [9] DonaldD23 talk to me 17:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work on finding those reliable and suitable reviews User:Donaldd23. I speedy withdraw this nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDb lists 16 reviews. After having taken a quick look at some of them, I'm convinced that this meets our notability requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the TV Guide review, there is also a review in Variety. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 05:21, 31 December 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. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post.news[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Early stage startup. Copied from draft/no review. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much too soon, hardly any coverage of any kind found. Can revisit perhaps in a year to see notability potential. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article has several sources with significant coverage, but this may be too soon for the mainspace. I find it hard to believe that this site does not meet NCORP. With improvements, the article should be ready to go soon. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC) Keep per Sdkb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its been moved out draft this morning. Its virtually identical to the previous article that was deleted with a very strong consensus about 28 days ago. scope_creep^Talk 16:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is plainly false. The article had all of two news sources when it went through the prior AfD; it now has eight, including two of the three I cited below as the strongest ones. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant sourcing was added after the prior AfD, and further sourcing was added after Scope Creep's (imo inappropriate) AfC decline. The topic unquestionably passes even the heightened WP:NCORP standard at this point. In particular, The Wrap's 900-word explainer^[1] is clearly long enough to constitute SIGCOV even by NCORP standards and includes critical commentary not just regurgitating a press release. The Times of Israel's 900-word article^[2] is similar. Lastly, Nieman Lab's analysis^[3] is even more in-depth, at 2000 words, and includes criticism (e.g. "There are a few questionable statements here...") that establishes clear independence. There are several other good sources from which to take your pick if you don't like any of those. The article is currently short, but lacking other issues that is no justification for draftifying, which should be done only when a page isn't yet suitable for mainspace. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Seitz, Loree (23 November 2022). "What is 'Post.,' the Twitter Alternative Stealing Mastodon's Thunder?". The Wrap. Retrieved 15 December 2022.
^ Wrobel, Sharon (30 November 2022). "A 'vessel for content': Former Waze CEO builds Twitter alternative with a16z funding". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 23 December 2022.
^ Owen, Laura Hazard (November 28, 2022). "Post, the latest Twitter alternative, is betting big on micropayments for news". Nieman Lab. Retrieved 15 December 2022.

Comment Lets examine the references:
Ref 1 [10] Company ref.
Ref 2 [11] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Funding news.
Ref 3 [12] "“Remember when social media was fun, introduced you to big ideas and cool people, and actually made you smarter?” the website’s description reads. “Remember when it didn’t waste your time and make you angry or sad? When you could disagree with someone without being threatened or insulted? We want to bring that back with Post.” Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 4 [13] Fails WP:ORGIND. Content drawn exclusively from the company website and the company director.
Ref 5 [14] Low-quality Techcrunch. Fails WP:ORGIND. Content drawn from the website.
Ref 6 [15] "“We want to allow you to read premium news from multiple publishers,” Bardin wrote in a post on Sunday. " Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 7 [16] Fails WP:ORGIND. Drawn from the twitter feed.
Ref 8 [17] Fails WP:ORGIND. Content drawn from the website, twitter and the director.
Ref 9 [18]] Fails WP:ORGIND. Content drawn from twitter, the director and the website and press-releases.

Not a single reference on the brand-new company that has not realised a product. It is a hype and PR and a press-release. All the coverage, as they're is nothing else, is from the website, twitter and director. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS scope_creep^Talk 06:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing Nieman Lab (one of the two most-respected American journalism trade publications, alongside CJR) of lacking independence in a 2000-word analysis that includes direct criticism just because it quotes the company's founder is an, um, bold move on your part. Ditto for others. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: This company has not even a launched a product yet. All the coverage here from the company. It is quoted either from press-release, company PR, folk in the company giving interviews or content taken from the company website or company directors. None of it independent. And none of it satisfies WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage here [is] from the company. What part of the company are the four paragraphs in the Nieman Lab analysis that begin "there are several questionable statements here" from? Direct criticism like that is the textbook example of a WP:ORGIND pass given that it include[s] original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

Your assertion that Post "has not even launched a product yet" is both immaterial to notability (which is supposed to be judged solely by coverage in reliable sources rather than your personal view about how likely a company is to succeed) and misleading given that Post has launched its site (albeit in beta form) and claims to have more than 65,000 users. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Sources provided by Sdkb are not significant. And per previous AFD. Gothamk (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete – It's verifiable but I feel not notable yet, basically a "garage band" of a company. It's a garage band whose front man has an impressive resume, some good VC backing, and a well-timed beta release when everyone is talking about the sudden changes in climate and leadership at Twitter, but notability is not inherited and it's still in the "garage band" stage of good intentions. (This said: there have been meaningful articles about companies that hadn't launched products yet, based on coverage and the zeitgeist. Greenwood_(bank) got a lot of steam during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, even though it didn't even start making a dent in its wait list until earlier this year.) I'd say to give it a few months, and expand and rebuild the article if it picks up, especially if it starts getting more mainstream coverage. It might just end up as a well-funded DeadJournal-level footnote to Twitter's Livejournal. –Mockingbus (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability more than established via sources. // Gargaj (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources among the 9 currently in the article to establish WP:N already in the article. There is no valid reason to delete this.Jacona (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 15:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Scope_creep's source analysis. RPSkokie (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's simply WP:TOOSOON; as of today, the company is 49 days old. It has talked a good talk about its potential as an alternative to Twitter and Mastodon, but has yet to fully prove that the initial flurry of interest from new users is anything more than that. Revisit possible creation of an article once the company has something more to show in terms of actual results as well as coverage. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RSBREAKING of the announcement of a new company does not meet WP:GNG, since it fails the "significant coverage" criteria; these articles do not address the topic in detail (GNG), because no such details exist. WP:RSBREAKING are also usually treated as primary sources, so this also fails the 4th criteria of WP:GNG, secondary coverage. DFlhb (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do have to agree with Sdkb on this source; though it has small bits that maybe aren't derived independently, I think that enough of it is an independent source, and there's significant coverage of this article's subject in it. However, my opinion of that source is the lone exception to scope creep's breakdown above. Articles require multiple of such sources, and even with searching online for additional sources this is the only one that meets that standard. Still WP:TOOSOON. - Aoidh (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've just added some additional sourcing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor has added a 1 paywalled ref "3 things pr pros know about post". This is indicative of very-early stage coverage and is not significant per WP:SIRS. The 2nd ref is an Apple Podcast [19] where Waze CEO Noam Bardin comes into the studio to discuss the product. This fails WP:ORGIND as its an interview with the founder. scope_creep^Talk 11:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Gilmore[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill county-level judge. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability, judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction are not inherently notable. I see nothing else in this subject's resume that would lift them into encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 15:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. BD2412 T 15:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree and vote to delete. Every local and municipal official doesn’t get their own Wikipedia page. There is nothing here to indicate WP:Notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and my own standards. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cloth mill Offermann[edit]

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

Non-notable building: fails WP:GNG in that no significant coverage is available in either English or German. German Wikipedia entry at de:Tuchmacherhof Offermann doesn't contain any additional sources that could be used to claim notability. Uhai (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Uhai (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless it's a registered heritage building (like the NRHP in the US), it just appears to be an interesting old building. I don't find any sources talking about it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found nothing substantial in online searches. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Krakoa. Clear consensus against a standalone article, consensus on a redirect target is less clear but marginally more support for Krakoa; this discussion does not preclude later retargetting. Policy (WP:NOTPLOT) and practice hold that when we cannot write a reliably sourced article on a fictional subject containing anything besides plot, we treat that subject as part of a work or larger topic. Among other things, plot summaries, even when sourced, are essentially coverage of the work, not the fictional aspects thereof. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Council of Krakoa[edit]

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

Just a lot of fancruft. Zero in-depth coverage to show any real-world notability. Everything is in-universe. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Krakoa per nom. No independent notability for this organization. No critical analysis and reception of the grouping. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Krakoa. Mccapra (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Krakoa and lock editing to prevent further unredirection, this needs to stop. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:A578:6010:913C:51E3 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete along with Krakoa page and other pages listed on Talk:Quiet Council of Krakoa if deemed for deletion. There are so many other pages related Marvel Comics in Wikipedia I can list including Nekivik replied in that talk page to Onel5969 that are based on only in-universe information and FANCRUFT; yet they happened to not have "notability" tag. Some of them even don't have appropriate wikipedia pages to merge with so they SHOULD be deleted but yet they don't "deletion" tag or been deleted. The PAGE all are asking to redirect itself has everything in-universe and lacks secondary sources.

This page have enough secondary sources and don't some references used on this page like below mentioned have real world notability been especially second reference or are these also in-universe?

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

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 11, 12, and 29 are all non-trivial RS coverage of the entity, from three different organizations that publish on developments in the fictional world. I assumed everything was going to be primary sources and this was going to be a slam-dunk redirect, but the sourcing is far better than I expected. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11 (CBR) is a lengthy plot summary, but I see no analysis / reception. 12 (comicbook) is just a poorer (shorter) version of that. 29 doesn't even seem to meet SIGCOV. In the end, the big problem is that there seems to be nothing we can say about this entity outside writing a plot summary, and this means WP:ALLPLOT is failed - and sure, this is just an essay, but WP:NOTPLOT is a policy, and obviously failed too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus WP:NOTPLOT restricts how Wikipedia presents fictional topics; analysis/reception is in no way required for a source to be SIGCOV, nor is it required for us to write an article--the actual wording is development, design, reception, significance, and influence which is much broader than your paraphrase. You also appear to be confusing notability, which requires sufficient RS, with verifiability, which only requires RS when there is a dispute. Thus, even assuming we only have enough RS plot summaries to establish notability, and enough primary sources to provide interesting tidbits about significance, then we have a perfectly good Wikipedia article. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. So, where's "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asserting that these need to be present in the article for it to be kept? Or are you asserting that none of these could be constructed from the combination of sources currently present in the article? Or are you asserting that none of these could be constructed from all the sources (present in the article or not) which address this topic? Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about reference 16? Nekivik (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nekivik There is no such reference I can see. If you link it here I'll comment on it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per my argument above (this fails NOTPLOT and ALLPLOT). PS. Redirecting to Krakoa is less optiomal - that article doesn't show its own notability and should be discussed here (at AfD) too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims of @Jclemens:

Nekivik (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Krakoa or List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Plot summaries aren't enough to establish notability. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a policy-based rationale for your !vote? (Hint: I doubt you can, because I'm entirely certain no such thing exists). Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the policy, WP:NOTPLOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there only plot summaries on page? Please check. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Check the recent changes made on page, before continuing discussion here.

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Immortal X-Men. Nekivik (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No independent notability for this topic. There is currently no substantial reception and/or analysis, and the sources don't provide much outside of a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Krakoa - I have my doubts that the sources actually pass the WP:GNG, but even if they did, the group would still be better off discussed as part of the broader topic of Krakoa per WP:NOPAGE. While that article, itself, is not in the greatest shape as noted above, a quick search for sources gave me the impression that there is a far stronger argument for notability there than here, and it would likely survive an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Best Comic Book Series or Original Graphic Novel of 2022". IGN. December 5, 2021. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
^ Lovett, Jamie (December 7, 2022). "X-Men: Kieron Gillen Sets the Stage for Sins of Sinister (Exclusive)". Comicbook. Retrieved December 23, 2022.
^ Hassan, Chris (April 11, 2022). "X-Men Monday #151 – Kieron Gillen Discusses 'Immortal X-Men #1'". AIPT Comics. Retrieved December 30, 2022.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 31 December 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 given Bearian's intention of working on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haplogroup O-K18[edit]

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

Tagged for accuracy since December of 2012. Referencing is a disaster -- almost all footnotes are to undefined sources. Delete per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. Mikeblas (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify? referencing is a mess, needs a rewrite, but I think it's been around too long to be draftified. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I'd be willing to work on it with my A.P. Biology students. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Messy but can be fixed without being moved into draftspace. There are plenty of references, but they need to be reorganized. Please see Wikipedia policies about how articles that are somewhat messy but nevertheless notable with lots of useful information should not be deleted. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make sure you're looking at the right article. This one has more than 350 "harvnb: no target" errors. These problems have existed since at least 2013, so it's obvious there no interest in fixing the issues or trying to verify the material the article presents. Add that to unaddressed tagging for jargon and the other problems, and I think it's clear nobody is interested in working on this and it won't be missed if deleted. Drafting it is a gift, but either way such a poor article doesn't belong in this corpus. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The creator of this article (Ebizur) has made hundreds of edits continually over the course of 16 years, in addition to several other editors over shorter time periods. I think there is quite clear interest in working on this page. It may be that this article can get the direction it needs through a cleanup discussion on its talk page. ― Synpath 03:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a great thing to do in draft-space. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify, ghastly mess. If someone hasn't looked at it in over 9 years, that speaks for itself. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leba Chand Tudu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another article created by the same sock chain on non-notable CPI(ML)L party functionaries. Fails WP:NPOL as a non-winning politician, and a search did not return WP:SIGCOV (though the article lists quite a few sources, these are mainly just election results). Curbon7 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Soman for uncovering those sources, which as DaxServer states, collectively determine notability. This is not a withdrawal, as a participant has !voted delete, but I'm striking my nomination. Curbon7 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and West Bengal. Curbon7 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also just for the record, a G4 was previously declined and the article is not eligible for G5 due to expansion by another user. Curbon7 (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is sourced, expanded and edited after the initial creation. The references given affirm notability, as leader of tribal struggles in Jhargram district in 1970s. --Soman (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AGF as many of the literary sources are offline, but this does not seem to be supported by the current prose, which gives the impression that these are passing mentions. The source that supports the statement that he is a tribal leader ([20]) is also only a very passing mention and comes directly from the CPIMLL website. Curbon7 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The recentism of sources being available on line creates a bias here. But looking at the material available, take for example Guerrillas: The Santals of West Bengal and the Naxalite Movement (Edward Duyker. Oxford University Press, 1987) which has Tudu covered over 6 pages (all snippet view for me, I can't make use of it for expanding article), or the inclusion in Who's who in 1982 Assembly Election, West Bengal, "SRI LEBA CHAND TUDU C. P. I. ( M. L. ) Leba Chand Tudu , ( 38 ) is the only School Final pass person among the Adibasis . He joined the Naxalbari movement in 1971 and was in prison upto 1977. He constantly struggled for the inclusion of..." (I feel there is more here, but snippet view limits me), Revolution Unleashed: A History of Naxalbari Movement in India, 1964-1972 (Amar Bhattacharya, Sampark, 2007, again snippet), Left Extremist Movement in West Bengal: An Experiment in Armed Agrarian Struggle (Amiya K. Samanta, Firma KLM, 1984) discusses the biography of Tudu across several pages (including the passage "He had promised Leba Chand Tudu a job and for that received two hundred rupees from Tudu . But he failed to procure a job , or to return the money . When Leba Tudu emerged as an activist in the party , he selected and killed Shaw as a class enemy."), quote "Duyker (1987) also mentions other influential tribal Naxalite leaders such as Gunadhar Murmu, Leba Chand Tudu, and Rabi Manjhi." in The Maoist Insurgency in Nepal: Revolution in the Twenty-first Century, "Santhal Maoists like Gunadhar Murmu, Jangal Santhal, Leba Chand Tudu and Rabi Manjhi were able to gain leadership status. Just as Mao wooed strategic minorities with promises of autonomy, as the Viet Cong wanted the tribal 'Front Unifie'..." in An Unfinished Revolution: A Hostage Crisis, Adivasi Resistance and the Naxal Movement, "The movement on West Bengal side gathered momentum after the GNLF accord came into operation in Aug. 1988 . The main JCC components are the CPI ( ML ) , N.E. Horo's Jharkhand Party , Leba Chand Tudu's Jharkhand Kranti Dal ..." ([21]), "Prominent Santhal leaders such as Lebachand Tudu and Gunadhar Murmu participated in this struggle. Violence began in the Gopiballavpur area in Midnapore from August 1969." in Marginalities in India: Themes and Perspectives, "Among the tribals Lebachand Tudu and Amulya Kalopahar from adjoining Nayagram were also included in the movement . The annihilation campaign through armed struggle in Debra took a brutal way from October , 1969 ..." in Sparks from Bidisa: Tribal unrest and tribal movement (Institute of Social Research and Applied Anthropology, 1994), "...we went to Kharikashole with the seized arms , ammunitions etc. I determined the policy of distribution of arms and placed the responsibility on Santosh to get them distributed to the guerrillas through Lebachand Tudu.." in Maoist "spring Thunder": The Naxalite Movement 1967-1972 (Arun Mukherjee. K.P. Bagchi & Company, 2007), "...forged an alliance with • PCC - CPI ( ML ) led by Santosh Rana , • Jharkhand Kranti Dal led by Leba Chand Tudu , and • IUML forming Jharkhand Sanjukta Sangharsha Morcha ( JSSM ) in June 1981." ([22]), etc. I'd say there is good indication of notability of Tudu. --Soman (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of his offices are very local. Fails WP:NPOL 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive sourcing available to allow for creation of RS article; passes BASIC/GNG. Response to !vote above: it is not possible to "fail" NPOL, it is a positive test, not satisfying NPOL only indicates a lack of presumed notability, not grounds for deletion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the sources provided by Soman above, I think the [scholarly] sources collectively demonstrate WP:BASIC criteria for notability — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Soman's source analysis article satisfying WP:NPOL. Tictictoc (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to TNT (character) (and potentially elsewhere if editors feel the content would be useful). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan the Dyna-Mite[edit]

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

Over a year ago I prodded this with "the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Sources cited here contain only passing mentions of him in a single sentence at best (or are primary or unreliable fansites), with no critical analysis, and there is no reception section here (nor is it likely one could be written). " It has been deprodded after User:Toughpigs added a reception section, which I'll quote in its entirety: "American Comic Book Chronicles says that the TNT and Dan the Dyna-Mite series "had potential, but consistently fell flat, limited space and unimaginative writing its chief problems." While the source may be reliable, WP:SIGCOV remains a major issue - we have half a sentence of analysis, and it's not even only about him. Identical receptions section has been added to TNT (character), of whom Dan the Dyna-Mite is a sidekick of. While this doesn't bode well for notability of either, usually the main hero tends to be more notable than their sidekick, so for now I am just listing Dan here, with a recommendation of redirecting and perhaps a merger of a short plot summary to TNT's page. But if there are no improvement in TNT's character notability, if BEFORE fails (I haven't done one for TNT yet, just or Dan), well... I'll end on a positive note that there is some coverage of both in The American Superhero: Encyclopedia of Caped Crusaders in History, and if we add this, then I think TNT's article may be saved. But crucially, all sources discuss them as together, and as such, Dan has no stand-alone, seprate notability from TNT and I think deserves little but a redirect and a section there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TNT (character) per nom. It's not clear to me why this was not tried before bringing this to AfD. I'll note that the nomination technically fails WP:SKCRIT criteria 1b. Jclemens (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see such a criteria. 1.1 is about speedy redirects, that's different from the merge you are suggesting. I don't mind speedy redirect, but I dislike doing this as it is a form of stealth deletion. Why not discuss stuff here, occasionally I have been proved wrong and entries I thought are not rescuable have been saved. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is a different case, there is a consensus to Merge but not agreement on the Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with TNT (character). I agree that there isn't much point having a separate article about the sidekick. Toughpigs (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How will his post-TNT history be mentioned there? Wouldn't it be a good idea to redirect it to List of DC Comics characters: D as a way to play it safe? Especially as he has appeared in the Stargirl: The Lost Children miniseries that is tied with The New Golden Age? I'm just asking here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge what's relevant to TNT there and merge everything to the D-list? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good suggestion. Perhaps for the latter suggestion, it can also be done for Wing at the W-list as he has also appeared in the Stargirl: The Lost Children miniseries that I had mentioned here. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as compromise. The sources appear to cover these two characters together. Archrogue (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TNT (character) per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Blaze[edit]

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

A New York City DJ who made the news for being murdered. Doesn't appear to be independently notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Crime, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His murder got a lot of news coverage, even a full article in the New York Times ([23]). But that does not satisfy WP:VICTIM because his murder has no larger historical context. And before that tragic day, it appears that he had received no reliable notice about his musical activities so he does not satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SaaS Labs[edit]

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

Non notable company with PR drived sources and no independent coverage. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, India, and United States of America. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources provided offer any meaningful independent analysis of the business or its products; all the coverage simply repeats the company's own description of itself, its funding and acquisition announcements, numerical facts submitted by the company, and statements made by company representatives during interviews. Red flags in the article include citation of a contributor article in Forbes; in this particular case, the TechCrunch articles are also not much better. Fails WP:NCORP. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references provided fall into funding announcements, acquisition announcements, product feature summaries, and appearance in fastest-growing lists, all of which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are not finding better. I agree with the opinion above that the available references lack the depth and independence needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources. Curntag (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Curntag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While most of the "delete" !votes are solidly policy-based, the same cannot be said of the "keep" !votes. In addition, the crimes are, at this point in time, only alleged but not proven, which fact means that policy requires that these allegations are not mentioned, neither in a BLP, nor in another article. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis N. Ofori[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:BLP1E, as the only significant coverage of the subject appears to be the rape allegations against him and, relatedly, his apparent attempts to bury them. A mention of him might be appropriate at The Hook, but beyond that it's not our role to actualize the Streisand effect here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Hook. Tangential mention of him here in the Washington Post, [24], appears he may have bought the Hook archives and taken them offline. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information: is there an article on the newspaper? The Hook is about an urban legend. Arlo James Barnes 14:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arlo Barnes it's at The Hook (newspaper). Skynxnex (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed link in my nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if he's notable for The Hook(newspaper), he should be in a subsection of that article. RedKaladin (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added some additional material and references and would be grateful for further review. Nangaf (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article subject meets WP criteria for notability, both for his professional achievements and for the allegations, with multiple independent citations. Plorpy (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plorpy notability only means they could have an article, not that we should give them a stand-alone page. Sdkb's nomination's mention of BLP1E gives good guidance on how to best deal with subjects like this article's. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Remove the allegations (which is what should happen per WP:BLPCRIME), and there's nothing left showing notability. Minus the allegations that should not be included, the article's subject fails WP:GNG; they are known only for those allegations, and per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons there should not be a Wikipedia article on a living person known only for unsubstantiated criminal allegations for which there is no conviction. - Aoidh (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BLPCRIME guidance applies and seems unambiguous. Nangaf (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis N. Ofori

Keep. Subject is notable on at least eight different grounds.

1. He is a wealthy securities trader, who has done extensive government business;

2. In 2017, the federal government debarred him from doing business with it, based on his misconduct in 2013 (“due to irregularities in a 2014 bid by their company Twin Assets LLC for HUD asset management services”);

3. In 2018, the federal government debarred him from doing business with it, based on his misconduct in a separate matter in 2014 (“for knowingly submitting false statements to HUD's Mortgagee Review Board in 2013”);

4. Subject “is also a defendant in an ongoing legal suit, filed in 2018, alleging fraudulent real estate valuation”;

5. Subject was accused by a UVA classmate of committing forcible rape against her;

6. A second woman also accused the subject of raping her;

7. He has apparently bought the archives of a defunct alternative newspaper, The Hook, which published a long article about one of his UVA accusers’ accusations and lawsuit, and has sought to disappear all online traces of the charges; and

8. He is apparently seeking to have the WP pages both on himself, and that of the newspaper he has apparently bought and whose archives he seeks to destroy, deleted. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:E1B5:4CEE:714E:F285 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.14.11.243 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those is a rationale for notability according to any notability guideline, and 4-6 are specifically things that shouldn't be given that much attention per WP:BLPCRIME. - Aoidh (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you said is completely untrue. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:5C56:214A:6867:E9F0 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's untrue then show it, don't just claim it. What notability guideline do any of those points meet then? The article certainly does't meet WP:NBUSINESSPERSON so there goes points 1, 2, and 3. WP:BLPCRIME means points 4, 5, 6 are very far from showing notability in that they shouldn't even be factors in the article at all. 7 is WP:BLP1E if that, and 8 is speculation and even if true, there is no notability guideline that says a subject is notable just because they do not wish to have a Wikipedia article. If it's untrue, please show your work and explain how it's untrue. - Aoidh (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[[25]] is irrelevant to 2, 3, and 4, since they do not relate to criminal matters. You can't just make up stuff as disqualifying. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:5C56:214A:6867:E9F0 (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it applies to points 2 and 3, but neither of those points show notability either. Fraud is a crime, so while WP:BLPCRIME applies, it ultimately doesn't matter because even if it didn't, that point doesn't show notability through any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines either. If the subject is notable, which notability guideline does he meet? None of the eight points you raised above show notability through any of Wikipedia's criteria. - Aoidh (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLPCRIME, this guy would probally be a random without the crime. It is what the policy matters Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - this set of incidents has received significant coverage in papers of record - WaPo and The Times - so undeniably pass the notability threshold, but the subject is not so much Mr Ofori himself so suggest remaning it to title focused on the takedown. 09:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.82.168 (talk)

A couple of sources about a single event is a situation specifically covered in WP:BLP1E. Rather than "undeniably" meeting WP:GNG, the exact opposite is true; this is a blip of coverage that was in the news briefly for an otherwise non-notable subject. The article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines.- Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The Hook includes relevant content. Hekerui (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO the subject is notable given the multiple sources of press coverage. Nangaf (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is an expanded article from the brief one that was originally nominated for deletion. I hope any editors participating after this relist evaluates the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PAG seems very clear that if his only notability is from the rape allegations/burying attempt, he should not have an article. What I'd need to see in an expansion of the article is GNG-establishing references that pertain to his role as a businessman. None of the keep !voters have provided that here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on the improvements to the article, it's still very much a WP:BLP1E situation at best with very problematic rape allegations that absolutely do not belong in the article per WP:BLPCRIME. Remove the crime allegations and the coverage for the single paper event and there's nothing of substance to the article and certainly nothing that shows notability. - Aoidh (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Following the newspaper coverage, I would say he passes BLP1E#2, and also that BLPCRIME does not apply. The article now, if somewhat short, is not the stub it was at the time of nomination, as mentioned above. Given the news about The Hook, I think he's notable, if only just barely. He is the main personal subject of the WaPo article, as the rape allegation and burying are both related to him—he is the cause of both. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "passes" BLP1E's second point, but being a high-profile individual (if that's what you're alleging) is something that is demonstrated via reliable sources and is elaborated on in WP:LOWPROFILE; outside of WP:BLPCRIME (which does very much apply here given that there are allegations of crimes for which there are no convictions) there are no sources showing such notability. WP:BLPCRIME is policy about living people; it cannot be dismissed out of hand without an explanation as to how you feel the BLP policy doesn't apply to a BLP article. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME the subject should not have an article, you can't just hand-wave WP:BLPCRIME aside and vaguely assert that BLP1E is "met"; that is something sources determine and sources do not support such claims. The WaPo article about the paper and its circumstances fall squarely within WP:BLP1E; there is no notability outside of that one thing. - Aoidh (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh: The subject is not the crime, but the response; so the interest-balancing motivating BLPCRIME is not present. The actual crime (or allegation thereof) is not the notable event of this subject's life. Similarly, BLP1E#2 is not met because of the coverage relating to the deletion of The Hook. I merely stated my opinion as to the policies mentioned above; you need not attack me for not fleshing out an argument before your response. You also misread BLPCRIME as a general matter—it deals with insinuations, not the material itself. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME very much applies to about half of the content currently in the article, particularly Curtis N. Ofori#Rape allegations. As far as The subject is not the crime, but the response the response is the allegations in various forms and falls squarely into WP:BLPCRIME's remit; being "accused of having committed, a crime" is exactly what that part of the policy covers and is exactly what is in the article. The actual crime (or allegation thereof) is not the notable event of this subject's life then it should not be present in the article. BLP1E#2 is not met because of the coverage relating to the deletion of The Hook that is a single event for an otherwise non-notable individual; WP:BLP1E very much applies there to the point that situations like this are precisely why 1E exists. If the only notability is, as you say, in relation to this one event, then the article's subject doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia, per the BLP policy, which very much applies to this BLP article. - Aoidh (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E applies here but even if an argument is made that it doesn't apply here, WP:CRIME is also pretty clear that someone shouldn't have an article in this situation Tristario (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is just as notable as Ngozi Fulani and Sistah Space, and number of commenters were insistent those were each too notable to be combined into a single Royal Racism Incident page. @Silver seren and CT55555: 87.196.72.150 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Tristario (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to get pinging at this AFD discussion and won't comment, as I cannot decide to what extent WP:CANVASS and WP:SPA apply here. CT55555(talk) 23:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that WP:DEL-REASON says that a breach of WP:BLP is a reason to delete an article - demonstrating notability doesn't mean that WP:BLP isn't breached. Either way the only significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources I can find relates to the rape allegations so this seems like a pretty clear case of WP:CRIME indicating that he shouldn't have his own article. Even if you argue that he has notability outside of the allegations, taking away the crime stuff which can't be included per WP:BLPCRIME, then he still fails WP:GNG --Tristario (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was very naughty what you did, Tristario!

Tristario removed all of the material in the article unrelated to the rape allegations and the suppression of The Hook, so that he can then say, "Look, beyond the rape allegations, and attempt to suppress them, there's nothing notable about Ofori." The material he deleted included the two federal actions against Ofori, and the pending lawsuit against him. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:6D41:A61:65A:B2BB (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that because WP:BLPPRIMARY explicitly says you're not supposed to use public documents as sources in biographies of living persons, and WP:BLP explicitly says you're supposed to immediately remove any poorly sourced contentious content. So I was explicitly compelled by wikipedia policy to do that. I linked to the policy in my edit summary, which you could have read Tristario (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this deletion discussion, it might be useful for other editors to be aware of this material, regardless of your judgement that it should be removed; and for that reason, I would like to draw attention to the previous versions of the article, which include Mr Ofori's other legal entanglements. Nangaf (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to do that. I'll note, though, that per WP:GNG that doesn't count towards notabilty as those aren't reliable secondary sources Tristario (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have restored some material. I rewrote the section to focus on Mr Ofori's career rather than legal issues, added some more references, and deleted two lawsuits for which only primary sources were available. Nangaf (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that is still just sourced to public documents, the parts about being debarred from government contracts Tristario (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that extra content is pretty irrelevant to this deletion discussion because none of it comprises significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which is what notability requires Tristario (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well let's see if we can reach consensus. I note that the catch-and-kill story is present on the current version of The Hook. Nangaf (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- but very marginal, given that there is scant secondary coverage other than the rape allegations and suspected catch-and-kill that are already covered at The Hook. Nangaf (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)^{Refactored to strike duplicate !vote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)}[reply]

@Nangaf, you have already !voted above. Please do not !vote twice; I have refactored your comment to strike the bolded text. (Also, if you and others !voting keep want the closer to give your !votes any weight whatsoever, you need to articulate what coverage unrelated to the allegations/catch-and-kill you are referring to.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all there on the article page: I assume that the closer will be able to read. Nangaf (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per Tristario, sourcing for articles like this (which have inherent NPOV issues) need to be top-drawer, and in my opinion these aren't top-drawer. Too many primary sources and too much original research, this is exactly the sort of article the spirit of BLP is intended to prevent. Daniel (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For my education, and the benefit of those reading, can you point out what in the article is original research? Nangaf (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where you use a primary source to attribute to a statement, that is original research, as you are trying to do the job of a secondary source in analysing a primary source. The following are primary sources: 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and maybe also 1. Daniel (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Durham, North Carolina[edit]

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

There is only one building over 100 meters. Also, the article does not seem to meet WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. Also, there is a new rule in Durham that limits buildings to 300 feet or 27 stories, so it is unlikely that more building above 100 meters will be built.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by City Dweller 2 (talk • contribs) 22:02, December 9, 2022 (UTC)

References

^ "Durham to see several 27-story skyscrapers: 300 ft. height limit explains the size | North Carolina Construction News". www.ncconstructionnews.com. Retrieved 2022-11-13.

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of the tagger--above text is copied from the article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. @City Dweller 2: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 06:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently leaning Weak Keep because I believe that the list scrapes by WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, although some more coverage would be welcomed. More advice for nom (pinging nom @City Dweller 2:) in future; make it a bit clear where and how the article violates the policies you have broken, because it is not very clear in your submission. Also, the contents of the list (the height of the buildings or new city rules) are not considered in AfD unless they directly affect policy, which they don't. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Yet another list copied from Emporis, where the fact that a church tower is #6 on the list is a bad sign. These buildings just aren't that tall. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and North Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fulfills the guidelines of WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing NLIST. I can find no comparable list outside of Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it'd be better to just have a list of all buildings in this city that have their own Wikipedia articles. Category:Buildings and structures in Durham, North Carolina Dream Focus 14:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST. Only perfunctory mentions of buildings with zero in-depth coverage. BruceThomson (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article passes WP:NLIST, but only barely. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 14:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Durham, NC is especially known for its tall buildings (clearly a notable subject). Curntag (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Curntag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock[reply]
- As a local to the Research Triangle, no it is not. I say baloney, provide sources if you wanna get far with that ridiculous assertion. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer, Curntag has been blocked as NOTHERE and likely sock evader. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST, I'm not seeing any coverage that groups Durham buildings in a way that discusses their respective heights. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article's subject fails WP:NLIST, since indiscriminate database entries have no context and aren't significant coverage. I was unable to find any sources online that discuss "tallest buildings" as a group in Durham. - Aoidh (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recent closures of similar lists affirms the consensus that GNG applies to these lists, and that sources must describe the heights of these buildings as a group in order to qualify (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Charleston, South Carolina, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Little Rock, among others) Since GNG has not been met here, this article should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Kaese[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Sarrail (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it is currently being improved by Nfitz, and am starting to shift from deleting to keeping the article, though I am still continuing this AfD until more notability is addressed. Sarrail (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added 5 references. 2 or 3 are in-depth and extensive. Much is local, but one of the significant one Victoria's Times Colonist. Nfitz (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for an actor is not passed just by adding a bit of "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage from the actor's hometown media market — it requires a broad range of coverage and analysis from beyond just the subject's own hometown area. Further, he was not a main star of any of the films or TV shows listed in the filmography — three of the four roles were completely unnamed bit parts, and he had a name in the fourth but it was still a bit part, so these roles can't be considered "significant" for the purposes of NACTOR #1 (which is looking for the significance of his specific role, not the general prominence of the work itself). As always, WP:GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who's gotten past two" — it also takes into account factors like geographic range and the context of what the person is getting coverage for, so having a handful of local-interest coverage in his own local media, and nothing at all beyond it, is not sufficient coverage to secure the permanent notability of a kid who had four bit part roles 20 years ago and has never acted again since. Especially since even the local coverage is more than 50 per cent in the context of being diabetic, and consequently having his father participate in local diabetes fundraisers, rather than anything relevant to a Wikipedia notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. I don't see in depth coverage, and I don't see a notable acting career. Maybe shift what's here into his father's article.OsFish (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sourcing, I guess he plays hockey now, found one listing for that, then the social media sites, then imdb, then it peters off. Even his Rotten Tomatoes profile is pretty empty, so he didn't garner critical attention, so nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the cuurent cited sources are either local news or fails to demonstrate the subject's importance. When I search the subject's name, it's only ever found as an item in some lists. Not significant enough to justify a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 06:00, 30 December 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 Main assisted reserve deployment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skyhook (skydiving)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The article is littered with issues dating back to 2012. Sarrail (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well delete the article and replace it with a redirect to Main_assisted_reserve_deployment. Way back in the day when I wrote the original article, Skyhook was the only MARD available. Skydiver (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Sports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Many quick mentions but no in-depth coverage. Needs a redirect as per Skydiver. BruceThomson (talk) 06:25, 30 December 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei and politics[edit]

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

This article has been around for quite some time, and there have been multiple discussions on the talk page about WP:NPOV issues with the article, many of which persist to this day; however, there has not been an editor that has been simultaneously willing, well informed, and (presumably) neutral enough to fix it. It relies heavily on anonymous authority to support various claims regarding the political stance of Opus Dei, and is preoccupied with distancing Opus Dei from far right politics rather than delivering a neutral assessment of the the politics of Opus Dei. Moreover, the topic may not even warrant an article of its own, and could be integrated into Opus Dei, Controversies about Opus Dei, or Opus Dei in society (another page suffering from issues). HighPriestDuncan (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Christianity. HighPriestDuncan (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable and has been written about extensively. The article is in lousy shape, but it looks like both "sides" are responsible for that. And there's been a lot of pointless tagging rather than editing. What is there includes a lot of the points that one would want to hit in an article about this topic and a lot of the sources are referred to as well, although they need to be integrated together with the facts. Jahaza (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article doesn't satisfy any of the conditions for deletion. It should be discussed and cleaned up. Merging may be an option. BruceThomson (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This article has the feel of an ATTACK page. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Controversies about Opus Dei and a new article on Opus Dei and Francoist Spain. The notability of the topics discussed in the article are not in question. But I agree that the title of the article lends itself to being an attack piece/battleground, and instead the article could be better split in several directions to avoid this and also more sensibly categorise different controversies (really, the Hitler and Francoist Spain controversies are mostly historical whereas the title implies more contemporary controversies). Firstly, a 'Political controversies' section could be added to Controversies about Opus Dei, discussing the general picture, controversy with Hitler, and controversy of Opus Dei's (contemporary) political influence. The Hitler controversy could be a separate subsection here. Secondly, the controversies regarding Francoist Spain merit an article in their own right (the discussion about Francoist Spain constitutes most of the current article). I think an article like Jesuits and Nazi Germany sets a precedent. _MB190417_ (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yeah, it goes beyond Franco. The article right now is a mess, but you could write a doctoral dissertation on this topic if you wanted, and notability is not in question. Its a question of whether or not we should have it as its own article. Deletion isn't a substitution for cleanup, and I don't think the merger proposal is a good one: this could be a really well done article on its own, and redirecting/merging wouldn't help that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat Prakash Shukla[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. I could find no significant coverage for him. A search for "Prabhat Shukla" yields many namesakes. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searching as "Prabhat Prakash Shukla" yields better results. Curbon7 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? LibStar (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just noting that searching by the article title yields few results that aren't this man. Curbon7 (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 30 December 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. Renaming proposals can be undertaken via normal editorial means on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Perso-Turkic War[edit]

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

As was recently demonstrated by Kansas Bear in the bottom of the talk page (and to a lesser degree by myself in the upper part of the talk page), there was no such thing as a "Second Perso-Turkic War".

The conflict described in this article (and further described in sources) was between the Sasanians and Hephthalites. The Turks (the suzerain of the Hephthalites) also took part in this, but that was a mere raid, not an actual war between the Sasanians and Turks. The conflict between the Sasanians and Hephthalites, war or not, does not seem to warrant having an article, and is already more or less mentioned in the relevant articles of Khosrow II and Smbat IV Bagratuni. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's already mentioned in a more relevant article and, as is, the article does not have enough sources to support the topic. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the quoted sources clearly define this as a raid, not a war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. raid, not a war is not a reason to delete and, I think, a rather academic distinction. Pinging @Ghirlandajo: he created Third Perso-Turkic War in 2007 and so presumably believes there was a second. I do not understand why Khosrow and Smbat are a more relevant article than, say, Sebeos or Hephthalites. But why repeat the same details over and over instead of just having an article on the event(s), whether a raid or a war, Perso-Turkic or Armeno-Hephthalite? Srnec (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the problem in having a war / raid (whatever it was) covered in a separate article. Nobody seems to dispute there was a notable military conflict. If the name of that conflict is not perfect, the article should be moved rather than deleted. Ghirla^-трёп- 19:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do you have any suggestions for another name? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review... The creator of the article misread his source and mis-dated the events. They occurred in 614–615 or 615–616 per Howard-Johnston's commentary in the English edition of Pseudo-Sebeos (p. 184). Howard-Johnston, Last Great War, p. xvii, calls it the "Turkish invasion of Iran" under the year 615 in his timeline. Srnec (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We could use more knowledgeable participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources upon review appear sufficient to meet WP:GNG, though a merge to a most relevant article may be of preference.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep HeliosSunGod (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I also support renaming here HeliosSunGod (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)sockstrike Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Keep and rename. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 04:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Ghirla Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Passes GNG Bruxton (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cossette, Inc.[edit]

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

Marketing company that fails WP:NCORP, can't find any good non-primary sources related to it. Sources that are in the article are of concern, and the biggest source, the CBC article, only briefly mentions the company. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 02:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, seems surprising given the age of the company and finding it listed here in Bloomberg, but I too could not find much from a google search on the company. And by not much, I really me not much else. Given that, barring any new sources, I support a delete per the nom.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete Sources mostly only mention the company in passing, but there are a few that make it the main subject in an article HeliosSunGod (talk) 05:08, 30 December 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 Soccer in Australia#19th century. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1886 in Australian soccer[edit]

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

As suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1886 South British Football Soccer Association season, this is probably non-notable, and it's a better idea to improve Soccer in Australia before creating spin-off articles. Avilich (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no point in keeping such a page up until such a time as when we can find more information on this topic- 107.190.33.254 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.33.254 (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soccer in Australia#19th century as possible search term. Giant Snowman 17:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is more easy-to-find information released since then, just trying to figure out how it can be structured in this article. FastCube (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well what is the information? Where is it? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soccer_in_Australia#19th_century specifically. I do not see a reason to otherwise have a standalone article for this specific year in soccer, in Australia. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:12, 30 December 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!} 00:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee News[edit]

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

Created 15 years ago by a COI and a new COI tried to replace with their about page today. Nothing is verifiable in article. A news and scholar search showed no coverage in reliable sources (admittedly difficult given name is two generic words). Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG and WP:V. Slywriter (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be deleted by administrators. This is an advertisement. Lobster from Maine (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to be found whatsoever. It's basically just an advertisement. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination HeliosSunGod (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, no sources found. Closest is a website called Daily Coffee News, about the beverage. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Sources provided are insufficient and not independent it would seem anyway. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails all of the possible notability possibilities: WP:GNG, WP:NORG, etc. UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Possible sources include https://businessviewmagazine.com/coffee-news/, https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/coffee-news-the-tan-community-paper-that-became-a-canadian-curiosity/. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not enough, even with Voice of America. This still fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, like Slywriter said. Maine 🦞 06:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here's another source from Voice of America [26]. Looks reliable and independent. Rupples (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Currently just a advertisement. Delete Per WP:NOTADVERT 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus here is the sources recently found meet GNG. All that is needed is for these references to make their way from this AFD to the article under discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berge Missakian[edit]

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

Biography of an artist, not reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for artists. The strongest notability claim on offer here is that he and his work existed, which isn't an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about the impact of his work, but this is completely unsourced and even on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources all I get is event calendar or directory listings, blogs and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things rather than real reliable source coverage that's substantively about him. Simply having existed is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Egypt, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Nothing found in Gnews, nothing in the Getty ULAN, confirmation that his artwork exists, but nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Earlier version of this article did have some references, such as "Missakian's Fluid Cubism Takes Shape In Happy, Jazzy Blend" a 2008 review by Birmingham News' art critic, and a 2005 Art Business News article which is now accessible here. The Benezit Dictionary of Artists does have an entry on him: [27] (which unfortunately cannot be fully read through Wikipedia Library at the moment), and there is a 1998 exhibition review from The Virginian Pilot here. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider sources discovered by AllyD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references found by AllyD. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm happy with the new sources, passes GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I am also happy with the type of sources as they are certainly RS, though one or two more would help in establishing WP:SIGCOV and not a few mentions as a result of his passing.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Bruxton (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of project management certifications[edit]

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

Skimming, I see only primary sources; seems like a shopping guide. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Done poorly as-is, but even though it's not something we're necessarily proud of as a society this is a billion-dollar industry. Wish all the articles around it provided better context, though. Abeg92contribs 15:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically "a resource for conducting business". Exam prices are not encyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If there were articles for more of these certifications I could see voting to categorify and have this redirect to the category; however, even as this is a large industry, this article in its current state seems largely irreparable and as mentioned above is seemingly a shopping guide. I have serious concerns about WP:PROMO if this remains. I guess my strongest argument is WP:TNT, and with that said I have no prejudice to recreation if done completely differently from how it is. TartarTorte 01:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As cited by felow editors clear case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:PROMO Pranesh Ravikumar (talk)Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete prices are subject to change and not likely to be updated. I think it would make sense to have a list page per jurisdiction, but a general global one poses problems HeliosSunGod (talk) 03:01, 30 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Malaysia Futsal Cup[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria. A page of stats. Merging would force a violation of verifiability on that article. There is no way to tell the accuracy of the content and if there is original research. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, are there any listed sources? If not, delete for sure. I don't see any references.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability - there's not even an article on the parent article?! If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources Avilich (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:V and WP:NOR. I can't find a parent article either but, even if there were one, I would oppose merging due to the V concern. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 31 December 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.

[Wrap_explainer-1] Seitz, Loree (23 November 2022). "What is 'Post.,' the Twitter Alternative Stealing Mastodon's Thunder?". The Wrap. Retrieved 15 December 2022.

[Times_of_Israel-2] Wrobel, Sharon (30 November 2022). "A 'vessel for content': Former Waze CEO builds Twitter alternative with a16z funding". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 23 December 2022.

[NL_micropayments-3] Owen, Laura Hazard (November 28, 2022). "Post, the latest Twitter alternative, is betting big on micropayments for news". Nieman Lab. Retrieved 15 December 2022.

[4] "The Best Comic Book Series or Original Graphic Novel of 2022". IGN. December 5, 2021. Retrieved December 30, 2022.

[5] Lovett, Jamie (December 7, 2022). "X-Men: Kieron Gillen Sets the Stage for Sins of Sinister (Exclusive)". Comicbook. Retrieved December 23, 2022.

[6] Hassan, Chris (April 11, 2022). "X-Men Monday #151 – Kieron Gillen Discusses 'Immortal X-Men #1'". AIPT Comics. Retrieved December 30, 2022.

[7] "Durham to see several 27-story skyscrapers: 300 ft. height limit explains the size | North Carolina Construction News". www.ncconstructionnews.com. Retrieved 2022-11-13.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]