Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 09	July 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compound of six pentagonal antiprisms[edit]

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

Mathcruft; referencing only one paper and that doesn't seem to discuss any specific antiprism compounds anyway (except for the four-page long table at the end maybe). A web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compound of six square antiprisms[edit]

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

Mathcruft; referencing only one paper and that doesn't seem to discuss any specific antiprism compounds anyway (except for the four-page long table at the end maybe). A web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors (and, funnily enough, a specific query with WP:Find link); no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia contains articles about many geometric schemata but not of everyone, for the simple reason that not everyone is noteworthy enough to merit an independent article. All these "articles" should be bundled to Square antiprism or, better yet, to Uniform polyhedron compound. What in Leonhard Euler's dandruff has caused this wave of mathcruft is anyone's guess. -The Gnome (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compound of twelve pentagrammic antiprisms[edit]

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

Mathcruft; referencing only one paper and that doesn't seem to discuss any specific antiprism compounds anyway (except for the four-page long table at the end maybe). A web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors; Google Scholar returns pretty much a passing mention in this Russian-language "article", which seems to concern recreational mathematics. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia contains articles about many geometric schemata but not of everyone, for the simple reason that not every one of them is noteworthy enough to merit an independent article. This, for example, should be bundled off to Pentagrammic antiprism, if we generously do not delete it outright. What in Riemann's zeta function has caused this wave of mathcruft is anyone's guess. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Taiwia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. -The Gnome (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPORTCRIT Lightburst (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compound of three square antiprisms[edit]

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

Mathcruft; referencing only one paper and that doesn't seem to discuss any specific antiprism compounds anyway (except for the four-page long table at the end maybe). A web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia contains articles about many geometric schemata but not of everyone, for the simple reason that not everyone is noteworthy enough to merit an independent article. All these "articles" should be bundled off to Uniform polyhedron compound. What in Gauss Princeps has caused this wave of mathcruft is anyone's guess. -The Gnome (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compound of six pentagrammic antiprisms[edit]

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

Mathcruft; referencing only one paper and that doesn't seem to discuss any specific antiprism compounds anyway (except for the four-page long table at the end maybe). A web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors (and, funnily enough, a specific query with WP:Find link); no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia contains articles about many geometric schemata but not of everyone, for the simple reason that not every one of them is noteworthy enough to merit an independent article. This, for example, should be bundled off to Pentagrammic antiprism, if we generously do not delete it outright. What in Archimedes' screw has caused this wave of mathcruft is anyone's guess. -The Gnome (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Mara[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above. does not satisfy WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compound of twelve pentagrammic crossed antiprisms with rotational freedom[edit]

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

Mathcruft; referencing only one paper and that doesn't seem to discuss any specific antiprism compounds anyway (except for the four-page long table at the end maybe). A web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia contains articles about many geometric schemata but not of everyone, for the simple reason that not every one of them is noteworthy enough to merit an independent article. This, for example, should be bundled off to Pentagrammic crossed-antiprism, if we generously do not delete it outright. What in Evariste's quadratic surd has caused this wave of mathcruft is anyone's guess. -The Gnome (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luki Gosche[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to suggesting actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:27, 13 July 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. czar 22:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Mascarenhas Homem (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. PROD removed by @Roniee:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pageviews shows no PT. DAB should be moved to base name and reformatted accordingly. MB 15:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move Manuel Mascarenhas Homem per MB. It's actually possible that Manuel Mascarenhas Homem (viceroy) is the primary topic, since they were both governors of Portuguese Ceylon for about the same length of time, while one was also the viceroy of Portuguese India, but it's a little hard (for me anyway) to determine, so WP:NOPRIMARY may apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 11 July 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. I'm happy to restore and draftify upon request, if anyone is interested. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Mina[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Routine coverage, primary. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Successively chief of two large law enforcement agencies. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, successful law enforcement officer and article has good sources as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons. First, the Keep argument made by Necrothesp is not in my opinion, a valid argument for Keep. Being the chief of a law enforcement agency is not a relevant criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The subject would be suitable for a stand-alone article if they have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. There was a failed proposal of notability standards at WP:Law enforcement agency quite some time ago, and I cannot locate any consensus driven guideline since then. The closest applicable standard is WP:POL - not really appropriate and in any event I do not see a proper indication of notability there either. There may be a weak argument that this elected role makes the subject a politician holding state/province office, but I am not convinced that an LEO is a "politician". Likewise, they are certainly a local "political figure" if not a politician, but the significant press coverage is lacking. The second keep argument states "successful law enforcement officer". Again, invalid argument at AFD. Countless people are successful LEOs. The local constabulary in my precinct is known to almost any person you ask in the proximity, yet he has no article as he does not satisfy the notability guidelines on Wikipedia. The appropriate guideline is WP:GNG as one comment states, and the other implies with their argument of "good sourcing" so lets take a look. I will number each source below in the order they appear in the article and comment if the article passes standards or otherwise call out why it does not.

N This source is a Sheriff's Association profile - not independent or secondary
N Not significant coverage, routine coverage of an election in which the Sheriff was elected. Independency also in question, appears to quote original content from campaign material
N Not as poor as some of the sources, but overall I do not consider a six sentence article to be significant.
N Rehashing of press release
N - Trivial mention of subject
N - Not independent
N - Not independent
N - Not independent
Y
N- Not independent
N - Not independent
N - Not independent

The article is not referenced with multiple published secondary sources that are releable and indepedent, nor can I find such sources elsewhere. Hence the subject does not meet WP:GNG and ought to be deleted. In absence of a conclusion of consensus to delete by reviewing admin, a conclusion I do understand is teneable given the 2:1 ratio, I please ask that reviewing admin to consider a relist in light of the Keep arguments being an incorrect application of WP:GNG. Simply pointing to a policy is not really an argument - sometimes it is okay in obvious cases, and occasionally I may do this myself. However this is actually a clear case of not meeting WP:GNG and so an argument for Keep in my view needs to show some sourcing or an argument substantiating a claim of meeting WP:GNG. Thanks to all, and happy to change my vote to Keep if significant coverage is shown to exist. Regards, MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp @Davidgoodheart hey to both, I was wandering if either/both please could review my analysis and change/confirm your vote to assist closing admin? Given what I found, if either/both could please provide confirmation of how the subject has been significantly covered per guidelines, would be really appreciated. Thanks to both and good day. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Notability criteria, from most specific to general: as an elected sheriff at county level can be considered a politician but fails WP:NPOL which requires statewide office. Awards listed under recognition section not significant enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. There is a lack of independent secondary sources providing significant coverage, therefore does not meet GNG. Overall, concur with MaxnaCarta and will echo the sentiment that success as law enforcement chief is not a valid keep argument; there are many chiefs of many police departments out there, and it is not clear how success is being defined here. This all has me leaning towards delete.
However, I do think there is one avenue that can be explored in greater depth: Mina was police chief during the Orlando nightclub shooting. We can infer he did well on that, because he was named by USDOJ as a member of a 9-pax committee that will review the law enforcement response in the Uvalde massacre. (Note: news about his appointment to the committee is only good for a passing mention in routine coverage.) Now, a single event does not automatically confer notability on Mina. But, there could be WP:SIGCOV to be found by delving deeper into this, since the event is no doubt of interest for academic study and analysis. In what way was Mina a "successful" chief? Under his leadership, was there anything that he did differently compared to others that factored into the response to the Pulse shooting? This could include things like instituting department policy, developing training, etc. beforehand as well as decisions made during the incident response. Basically, we're looking for a widely recognized contribution in the field of policing and law enforcement, as assessed by credentialed experts in that field. Therefore, draftify this article to give time for interested editors to do a more thorough search for potential sources that could support notability in this way. To start off, let me offer:^[1] We can't reasonably go through 120 pages of report and 50+ more in appendices as part of this AfD, but let's give people a chance to have a go at it. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why draftify? This is an WP:ATD when we can expect an improvement of the article over the next six months, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Rescue, response, and resilience: A critical incident review of the Orlando public safety response to the attack on the Pulse Nightclub" (PDF). Department of Justice. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2017.

Comment That references is the man at work and is completley primary with no historical depth or value. There is no basis for draftifying here as there is no coverage. The WP:BEFORE doesn't show anything and reference review above confirms that. Fails WP:SIGCOV. That is the only standard here. scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that there are various issues with law enforcement in the US but the out-of-hand dismissal makes me uncomfortable. Use of derogatory slang "the man" connotes sweeping overgeneralization treating the entire law enforcement system in aggregate, with the suggestion that the federal level DOJ is incapable of making independent assessments about the work of a municipal level police department. I offer the DOJ report as a starting point to investigate if there is any widely recognized contribution that could support notability. To be clear, I am not asserting that the report's existence alone is sufficient evidence for that, nor that it necessarily contains such evidence. If Mina is given credit for something but it's only because he "just happened to be the one in charge" at the time rather than for doing something that had material consequence, that doesn't really count either.

Sure, existing refs in the article don't show notability, but I am not confident we have conclusively ruled it out either: I pointed out at least one reasonable path, albeit it may take longer to fully delve into it than I feel we have time for here. The difficulty with sourcing for the subject of this article is that there is a large amount of passing/routine coverage due to public-facing PR aspects of sheriff and police chief work; none of that is useful for establishing notability, but the sheer volume of it can overwhelm, making it harder to locate actually usable sources. We should not punish for that, and I see no harm in draftification to provide a reprieve that allows time and opportunity for a more thorough search, guided in a potentially more fruitful direction. This is not a WP:MUSTBESOURCES keep vote — if efforts prove futile or no one bothers, I would not be opposed to a subsequent MfD or G13 deletion. —2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. @Scope creep was not making commentary on the police force mate. Reading too much into this. It isn’t a personal attack on anything, the subject just doesn’t meet notability and being a good cop isn’t justification for inclusion on Wikipedia. No notability, no article (subject to rare exceptions which do not apply here) MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:44, 19 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yahwism[edit]

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

Multiple people have came to this discussion trying to find a discussion for a flood article deletion. I do not know how this happened but if your looking for that please click here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgeton flood of 1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenhighwayconstruction (talk • contribs)

That is because this AfD nomination is so malformed it never included a link to the article in question. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

beieve this article should be deleted Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC) My first reason is I believe that all the info in this article can be found on one of the three following pages Canaanite Religion,Yahweh, or Origins of Judaism Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC) I am also going to say that there is secular dispute about what came first as the history chanels website https://www.history.com/topics/religion/judaism#section_3 shows. In addition there is no evidence(that I can find) that shows the Canaanites didn't rename El to Yahweh Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that history.com is WP:RS, you need to read that guideline again. Especially when no one in particular is named as the author of that article. Even admitting that history.com would be RS, it would be very low on the pecking order, and certainly does not trump full professors from WP:CHOPSY. Whether Yahwism and Yahweh have to be merged, that's another question, but I oppose the wholesale deletion of Yahwism. The tool for detecting bad sources marked the link to history.com in red. Need I say more? We have a name for stuff like Judaism is the world’s oldest monotheistic religion, dating back nearly 4,000 years. We call it tall stories. About 2000 BCE there were no Jews/Hebrews/Israelites whatsoever, there was no such thing as Hebrew language, and the ancestors of Israelites certainly weren't monotheistic back then. 1500 BCE? Pretty much as I said before. Another: More than 1,000 years after Abraham, the prophet Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt after being enslaved for hundreds of years. Let conservative Jewish scholars speak about that: Greenberg, Moshe; Sperling, S. David (2007). "Exodus, Book of.". In Skolnik, Fred; Berenbaum, Michael; Thomson Gale (Firm) (eds.). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 6 (2nd ed.). pp. 612–623. ISBN 978-0-02-866097-4. OCLC 123527471. Retrieved 29 November 2019. Current scholarly consensus based on archaeology holds the enslavement and exodus traditions to be unhistorical. According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, a Yeshiva boy who became a Bible professor at Harvard University, "Most Israelites were actually of Canaanite stock; their ancestors did not participate in an Exodus from Egypt; Israelites did not build the pyramids!!!" http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/notes/09-Notes.pdf https://courses.biblicalarchaeology.org/hebrewbible/notes/09-Notes.pdf tgeorgescu (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Another nom for deletion solely because a random user is offended? Pass. Zhomron (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhomron: Hey that kinda goes against WP:GOODFAITH.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with tgeorgescu's view of the beginnings of Judaism. A case can be made that Josia (7th c. BCE) was the first Jew, although most of the Torah had not yet been written during his reign.

I think Yahwism, being the (or a) precursor of Judaism, is important enough to deserve its own page. Reading the current page, however, I kind of despair. Take the second sentence: "Yahwism was essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses." This seems utterly wrong to me. It confuses the older role of Yahweh as one of the many gods in the Canaanite pantheon with the monolatristic (or henotheistic) Yahweh-alone party, as Morton Smith called it. It is hard to say though when this sect took off; Kings 1 and 2 cannot be trusted as historical sources. It is highly unlikely that David (or whatever was the name of the king residing in Jerusalem at the time) was of the Yahweh-alone persuasion. The Yahweh article considers the Elijah stories in Kings as history; I think they were made up by 7th/6th century ideologues (Josiah or early Exiles).

The Iron Age sections of the current Yahweh article are pretty good in explaining Yahwism (without mentioning the term), I think ("In 9th century, the Yahweh-religion began to separate itself from its Canaanite heritage..."). The Canaanite religion page, however, isn't very helpful for our purposes. So, again, I agree with tgeorgescu as regards preferred content, but I'm in doubt about the current Yahwism page. A qualified oppose: either it ought to be rewritten in the spirit of the Yahweh article, or it should be deleted. GdB (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all this is not because I'm offended and somebody just violated WP:AGF IMO . IM not Jewish even though that isn't at all important. Secondly the paragraph of the history.com article is part of a 3 paragraph explanation that starts w/ something 2 the effect of "jews beieve". However the 4000 years old date is not prefaced with anything to a similar affect. There has also been no opposition to my main point, witch is that the info in this article is already covered in 3 different articles and does not need be merged as the info is already there. Maybe the term Yahwism could become a disambiguation, but that requires deletion of this article first. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you had proposed the merger of Yahwism with Yahweh, I would have voted support. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to compromise at merge however I think that Canaanite Religion would be a better home. I also think that it would be easier to merge with Canaanite Religion as most info on the Yahwism article is already on the Canaanite religion page. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose article is well sourced,a nd clearly meets WP:N, and has pretty significant content that seems to warrant it's own article. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nobody is disputing if this article is properly sourced that is not at all the focus of the debate. This "significant content" is in like 3 other places on Wikipedia. Yes it is notable but there are enough articles that state what this article is stating. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the AfD was so malformed I believe it negatively impacted peoples' ability to comment. There was no link to or mention of the original article in the nomination, so people had to guess what article was being AfD'd, look at the raw AfD list, or look at others' contribs to find it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: as per Aunva6, Zhomron, and Tgeorgescu above, there's no convincing reason to delete a well-sourced, standalone article about the early history of Judaism and ancient Hebrew religion; moreover, Greenhighwayconstruction's proposal to merge it with Canaanite religion doesn't make any sense, since the ancient Hebrews separated themselves from the Canaanites and built their own society and religious tradition independently of them and their polytheistic Semitic pantheon.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] GenoV84 (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Stahl, Michael J. (2021). "The "God of Israel" and the Politics of Divinity in Ancient Israel". The “God of Israel” in History and Tradition. Vetus Testamentum: Supplements. Vol. 187. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 52–144. doi:10.1163/9789004447721_003. ISBN 978-90-04-44772-1.
^ Smith, Mark S. (2017). "YHWH's Original Character: Questions about an Unknown God". In Van Oorschot, Jürgen; Witten, Markus (eds.). The Origins of Yahwism. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Vol. 484. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 23–44. doi:10.1515/9783110448221-002. ISBN 978-3-11-042538-3. S2CID 187378834.
^ Smith, Mark S. (2003). "El, Yahweh, and the Original God of Israel and the Exodus". The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 133–148. doi:10.1093/019513480X.003.0008. ISBN 978-0-19-513480-3.
^ Smith, Mark S. (2000). "El". In Freedman, David Noel; Myer, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 384–386. ISBN 978-90-5356-503-2.
^ Niehr, Herbert (1995). "The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspects". In Edelman, Diana Vikander (ed.). The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Leuven: Peeters Publishers. pp. 45–72. ISBN 978-90-5356-503-2. OCLC 33819403.
^ Van der Toorn, Karel (1999). "God (I)". In Van der Toorn, Karel; Becking, Bob; Van der Horst, Pieter W. (eds.). Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd ed.). Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 352–365. doi:10.1163/2589-7802_DDDO_DDDO_Godi. ISBN 978-90-04-11119-6.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, and Israel. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I personally think this theory about early Israelite religion is mistaken, it's an important strain in contemporary religious scholarship.--Jahaza (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm amazed this completely nonsensical nomination wasn't speedily kept under WP:SK1. There is no rationale for deletion at all; at best, the nominator makes a rationale for merging, which AfD is the incorrect venue to specifically request a merge (WP:PROMERGE is the correct venue). I can't even parse what the nominator is trying to say in any of their comments. This may be delving into WP:CIR territory. Curbon7 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regret keep but change its tone - I think that an article of this kind needs to be kept, but its tone is all wrong. It reads as if the position that it takes is generally accepted. It may be accepted among liberal theologians, but certainly not among conservatives. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to that: the subject is clearly contested between the orthodox and skeptics. This depends on how much credit can be given to the Hebrew Bible as a historical document. This is difficult, because the Bible is written from a monotheistic POV, seeking to play down polytheistic elements in the religion of Israel. This gets mixed up with issues as the the date of the Exodus and even whether there was an Exodus; with issues as to the date of Abraham and the succeeding patriarchs to whom Yahweh revealed himself; and with the extent to which Israel was primarily monotheistic as opposed to the extent to which pre-existing Canaanite religions crept into popular Israelite religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia kowtows to mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So, the article does not cover the orthodox views, since such views do not belong to mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I completely agree that the tone is wrong, but the article is a good starting point for expanding in the right direction.--Jahaza (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and tagged the article as unbalanced as a service to readers (and reminder to editors) that will remain after the AFD comes to an end.--Jahaza (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article doesn't seem to be in such dire straits that it should be deleted, but maybe it can be improved in some way. Andrevan@ 22:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No valid reason offered for deletion, and the "dispute" cited is from an unreliable source. Dimadick (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue. Merging is an option, but a malformed AfD is not something I'd recommend as a starting point. SWinxy (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No proven case for deletion or for merge. Why is this discussion still open? gidonb (talk) 04:12, 18 July 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. Snow, and the subject is requesting it. This does not need seven days when it's a borderline A7 without the spate of negative news around criminal issues. Star Mississippi 13:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Hevener[edit]

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

Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE from the subject.[1] Very low notability. Most coverage is local and seems to be due to animal neglect case that he was convicted of. Also brought up at BLPN.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I ordinarily don't think too highly of BLP requests for deletion, this article would, on its own, fail to stand the WP:GNG test.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this BPL fails notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not meet our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability.Mahdiar86 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I would not sustain a move to delete an article by the subject primarily because it reflects ill on them, but in this case, there's no other indicia of notability. Delete. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am disclosing that I discussed deletion with the subject as a possible solution to his concerns. This is a person who creates dog figurines and writes self-published novels. He got into a nasty legal problem and got a brief spate of negative publicity. He is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Disclosure: I had been involved in the early discussion with the subject). He doesn't really strike me as notable, it seems a fairly straightforward case of WP:BLP1E. Seems to be heading into WP:SNOW territory here. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaher Saleh[edit]

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

The only significant coverage of him I can find is interviews. Not notable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Palestine, and Ohio. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page came about when I was impressed by his film and checked him out. It wasn't the interviews that made me decide to create his Wiki page, but this. Although I don't see what's wrong with using interviews. I suppose there should be some coverage of his success at Star Academy (Arabia) somewhere. There seem to be at least half a dozen people whose Wiki pages are based on their success at that show. --Sobol Sequence (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and even WP:NCREATIVE. Of course, "there must be sources" is unfortunately not a strong enough argument. -The Gnome (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Science and Technical College, Jalingo[edit]

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

Not notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Government College, Ganye. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mass produced stub about non notable school. Mccapra (talk) 00:21, 11 July 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball (Novel)[edit]

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

Another unremarkable Arabic novel. Part of a recent slough of these. References do not demonstrate notability. A loose necktie (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of the two sources in the article, one is a full length review of the work while the other is an interview with the author about the work. In addition I have found another full length review in a mainstream publication here. Mccapra (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the critical commentary is entirely unsourced, and the rest fails WP:PLOT. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify?. That's where, well, basically all the rest of these are. (ANI thread for context: [3].) If it's kept, I think it has to be stubbed. It looks strongly like "copyvio by translation" to me and it's not very helpful to readers in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to draftification for improvement. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with 2 sources being full reviews, this should be kept. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BKCRIT reviewed. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 18 July 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Pony Pisador[edit]

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

Most reliable sources are found are mostly concert announcements, and interviews. There is scarce independent coverage. It does not seem to meet basic notability criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. MarioGom (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough to meet WP:GNG if you also add this article and this article to the sources. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. czar 22:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Walpole, 8th Earl of Orford[edit]

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

This person doesn't exist. It's a fake. 'Earl of Orford' title became extinct in 1931.^[1](talk) GorgonaJS 21:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Morris, Susan, ed. (2019). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage. p. 4699.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was incorrectly filed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Walpole, 8th Earl of Orford (2nd nomination); nomination has been moved, but other links and the transcusion into the log has not been changed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. The citations are fraudulent - none of the cited sources have the information they are supposedly documenting. Agricolae (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this is either a completely made up entry or a case of someone claiming a title they have no right to. Either way there should not be an article. Dunarc (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 02:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Palmer (sculptor)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:CREATIVE. A WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any more SIGCOV sources. Given the only source is the single source currently in the article, there are not "multiple sources" as required by the aforementioned guidelines. House Blaster^talk 20:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Architecture. House Blaster^talk 20:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Dictionary of British Sculptors gives quite an in-depth biography, and references other secondary sources which discuss his works. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that source gives an in-depth biography. However, all but one of the references appear to be to be primary sources (letters, archives, etc.). There are two exceptions. The first is a citation to Wren Society, Volume III, which in turn cited a letter that trivially mentions a man named Palmer (who may or may not be William Palmer). The second is to Antiquaries Journal, Volume XXII. I just spent a good 15 minutes looking specifically for that quote to see what coverage it has, and I was unable to find it in TWL despite it having access to the entirety of the journal. If someone else has more luck finding this source/how in-depth the coverage is, please ping and I will revisit this. House Blaster^talk 22:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. It's a really common name, with what, 30+ people at William Palmer. You haven't sifted your BEFORE properly - there's plenty there, including snippet view: "PALMER , WILLIAM of London , 1673-1739 An important early eighteenth century sculptor of whom a good deal is ...(known presumably), and "one of the most important of early eighteeenth-century sculptors" at page 77 here. There will be plenty more that (gasp, shock horror!) isn't online. Please don't do more noms like this. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that sources can in fact be found offline. I am also aware that that users are not required to magically know what sources exist offline BEFORE nominating an article. That being said, we are all human, and this nom was a mistake on my part. My apologies for the waste of time. I have withdrawn the nomination. House Blaster^talk 02:26, 11 July 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. The fundamental issue here is whether or not the concept of a "list of the largest town in England without a railway station" is notable enough to justify a standalone list article devoted to it. The most applicable policy brought up in this discussion is WP:LISTN, which requires sources that demonstrate that the topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". While one source from the Daily Telegraph was provided during this discussion, the quality of that source was questioned because it seems to primarily discuss travel times from London to various UK cities, with only a brief passing mention of large English towns that no longer have a railway station, therefore failing to provide significant coverage of the exact topic at hand.

The individual entries in this list seem to be fairly well-sourced, so it can be understandably frustrating to delete a well-sourced article. However, keep in mind that verifiability and notability are two entirely different concepts. Consensus is that while most of the information in this list is verifiable, the list itself is about a non-notable topic, and therefore must be deleted. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest towns in England without a railway station[edit]

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

This article is a heap of WP:SYNTH. There aren't sources here discussing the entire list as a set. The only such source which might cover the list as a set returns a 404 error when I try to view it. As such, this article fails WP:NLIST. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trainsandotherthings has also nominated List of largest towns in Wales without a railway station for deletion. A merge of the two articles and perhaps including Scottish settlements would be an option. NemesisAT (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus at this particular AfD is to keep, with a different consensus at the Wales article, I would have no objection to such a merge. If we are to cover this topic, there is no real reason to divide it up by the constituent portions of the UK (Wales, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland). But I have stated my views on these articles. So we wait and see what consensus, if any, comes about here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally not one for bundled AfD nominations, but in this case I think it may be beneficial as both articles are similar and your rationales appear similar also. NemesisAT (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I can see the value in these list articles and have assessed the previous afd as well from 2018. My concern is not whether there are sources to determine that these areas are without a station, but whether there are credible sources discussing these areas as being relatively large without a station. I am unsure how notable the subject matter is, even if it's factually verifiable. A merge as considered above would need to consider if there are sources discussing this matter from a national perspective. I disagree with the nomination that the list is WP:SYNTH, but the wider issue around whether the list is noteworthy is a fair point. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if I can argue that this list will satisfy our guidelines for list notability or synthesis. Though towns being far away from railway stations is a frequently discussed topic here in the UK, often used to argue for rail investment.
- The map that shows how long it takes to reach every corner of the UK by train
- Which parts of Great Britain are furthest from a train station?
- The seaside town near London that bizarrely doesn't have a train station despite 70,000 people living there (note this one actually refers to Wikipedia, so not suitable as a source)
- Scottish towns with no railway station look to get back on track "Grangemouth is the largest town in Scotland with no station of its own."
- Campaign launched to reconnect north-east with rest of Scotland inspired by the Borders railway "Peterhead has a population of 19,720, and sites 32.5 miles from a railway station, making it the largest settlement furthest from a station in Scotland." whatever that means
- Why doesn't Wythenshawe have the train station it deserves? The fight to restore the town's lost railway lines "Wythenshawe, population 72,000 and almost 100 years old, is the largest town in Europe without a railway station, despite the fact that a rail line runs right through the area," - a quote of a quote within the article, so not really reliable

This page is currently number one in a Google search for "biggest town without a railway station". I'm not arguing to keep this article (yet) but think there is merit in the subject, would be interested to hear others' thoughts. NemesisAT (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick search, there appears to be more than enough coverage to support an article on the legacy of the Beeching Cuts, which would presumably cover towns and cities left without rail service as a result of the cuts [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the Beeching legacy is a curious suggestion, but i'd agree with Nemesis that I also think there is merit in the article as a list and if I had to lean any way, it would be to keep. I think a list article can have some prose content too and maybe if this relates to the legacy from credible sources discussing it, that would satisfy the noteworthiness of the list. This article can definitely be more than what it is though, so maybe an article primarily about the legacy of the cuts and impact, that includes lists like this, is also worth considering. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List is well formatted, could use more notations/citations, not a bad start. Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, this topic comes up a fair bit in England, and the list is fully sourced. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that there's sourcing for the individual towns. But where is the sourcing that shows this topic as a whole meets NLIST? We talk about the roads being poor in Rhode Island all the time, but there's no List of longest roads in Rhode Island without proper maintenance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons as given by Fire Walk with Me. Rillington (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is notable. I dont think its true WP:SYNTH, its just a list of towns that a reliable source said didnt have a station. Its not a by population list and doesnt explicitly say X is the largest town without a station or anything particularly SYNTHy. Not sure we need a source that talks about them all as a set. Eopsid (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST says "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems like a rather ~~myopic~~ un-encyclopedic topic. My first inclination is to say Delete - I do not see why the topic is notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic about which plenty has been written over the years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying "the topic is notable" without any evidence of such is not productive. There needs to be coverage in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the list has been written about as a list, so no pass on WP:NLIST. Not a content fork, so no pass on WP:CFORK. The keep votes to date are merely asserted notability and should not be considered in closing the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This source from The Daily Telegraph which someone posted earlier [9] does include a list of largest towns without stations. Eopsid (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't list those things. It lists which stations take the longest to get to. BrigadierG (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put a more direct link to that article's list in a comment further down. Just search for "10 of Britain's biggest towns without a railway station" in the article if you cant find it. Eopsid (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are sources that discuss that describe individual towns that don't have railway stations, there isn't anything per say that specifically lists towns without railways station. The information would be better covered in the individual settlement pages. Jumpytoo Talk 00:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another use already linked a source from The Daily Telegraph which specifically lists largest towns without railways station. [10] More direct link to list: [11]. Eopsid (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately, that is a list of the largest towns that used to have a station but no longer do. As such, it is not exactly what is required here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of that list is "10 of Britain's biggest towns without a railway station". Its not explicitly a list of largest towns that used to have a station. They just all happened to have a station at one point and there is a column for that on the list, there is also a column like that on the article we are discussing. Eopsid (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fairly obvious that towns that never had a station are not being considered there. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's besides the point as this article clearly indicates that most of the large towns without a station did have one previously. NemesisAT (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's as maybe, but since "towns without a station but had one previously" isn't the subject of this list, it's not exactly relevant. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that that list excludes towns that never had a station. Just looking at the article we're discussing it only mentions two towns without stations. One's too small for the Telegraph's list and the other is more an island than a town. The reason there are no large towns in that list that never had a station is because there arent any. Eopsid (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence has been found/presented to demonstrate this intersection is notable and warrants a list article. Sources are predominantly about individual towns, with others discussing a subset of this whole (e.g. towns that used to have a station). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lon Safko[edit]

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

This appears to be a promotional piece for an entrepreneur who hasn't received much independent coverage and doesn't look notable to me.

The references provided are mostly dead links or don't mention Safko. The others appear to be from organizations closely associated with the subject, or groups who hired him as a speaker. The first deletion nomination in 2015 was closed as no consensus, although no !votes were made apart from the nomination, only a comment. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United States of America. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promotional article on a non-notable person. Wikipedia is not a place for someone to try to promote themselves to be notable, articles are supposed to be on subjects that already are clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree the article is merely promotional and subject doesn't meet notability standards.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:38, 16 July 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. A somewhat parallel (and more in-depth) discussion took place simultaneously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest towns in England without a railway station (2nd nomination). The short story is that there is consensus that this list is non-notable per WP:LISTN. A more thorough analysis can be found in the closing statement at the above-linked AfD. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest towns in Wales without a railway station[edit]

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

This appears to be entirely synthesis and original research. There is no reason we should be covering this topic when there are no sources addressing it as a set. Therefore it fails NLIST as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Trainsandotherthings. There have been a number of discussions on this topic in the media, three of which I have now added to the article as references. The article is a sister of the existing List of largest towns in England without a railway station which doesn't seem to have been proposed for deletion. As I've sourced, there have been Guardian and City Monitor discussions around areas without railway stations as part of a broader topic on geospatial issues in the UK. If you feel some of the elements involve too much original research e.g. the distance measurements then I respect that, and concede those are additions to the England article. Yet there seems to be sufficient grounds for a list article on population, date of closure (if any) and additional notes. Llemiles (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about List of largest towns in England without a railway station, I will nominate that article for deletion as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning other articles is not an argument for inclusion, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions BrigadierG (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Wales. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is notable. The article could do with some cleaning up, particularly with how its defining town, but I dont think its deletion worthy. Eopsid (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying "the topic is notable" without any evidence of such is not productive. There needs to be coverage in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic about which plenty has been written over the years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying "the topic is notable" without any evidence of such is not productive. There needs to be coverage in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the list has been written about as a list, so no pass on WP:NLIST. Not a content fork, so no pass on WP:CFORK. The keep votes to date are a mixture of asserted notability and WP:OSE and should not be considered in closing the discussion. BrigadierG (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at the AfD for the England list. Jumpytoo Talk 00:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as per England list). No evidence has been found/presented to demonstrate this intersection is notable and warrants a list article. Sources are predominantly about individual towns or places that are farthest from a station (which is obviously not the same thing). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to International Standard Audiovisual Number. Please do not merge or move pages or convert them into redirects DURING an AFD discussion, before it has closed. It makes the closure much more complicated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 15706-2[edit]

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

IMO does not meet notability criteria, could be merged without significant loss of noteworthy material. Kazamzam (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Standard Audiovisual Number, where it is discussed. Given that the first part of the standard, 15706, is discussed in the ISAN article, merging the second part of the standard there is an obvious alternative to deletion. I don't know why this was brought to AfD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it already had a bold merge which seems the obvious way to go. Few people will be looking up the string of digits. As above, the deletion proposal was not needed, but now that we have it, can get a clear consensus. Thanks to Kazamzam for doing the work already. W Nowicki (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (keeping the redirect, of course) per the above and the merge looks fine. Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Drmies. CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srimaan Ramchandra Raja[edit]

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

BLP of the state chairman of the national students union. This position isn’t sufficient to confer notability. The subject may be a GNG pass but I doubt it as the refs are interviews, quotes and other pr-type material rather than in depth coverage, but other editors may feel differently about it. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Education, and India. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 10 July 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) 13:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic injustice in literature[edit]

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

While systemic injustice may well be a notable topic, there doesn't seem to be much, or any, coverage of it in reliable sources in relation to literature. Most of the sources in the article either refer to systemic injustice in non-literary contexts, or discuss specific texts but don't have anything to say about systemic injustice (there are a few on social justice and literature, which could be a notable intersection, but isn't the topic of this article). Literary hope theory, which was deleted last month, came out of the same course, and as far as content's concerned this is in significantly worse shape. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, Politics, and Social science. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to be a notable intersection of topics given that one of the two themes doesn't even have its own article. Pure WP:SYNTH. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another student essay that is not an encyclopedia article. This essay includes general descriptions of systemic injustice that are not specific to literature (which can apply to film, TV, real life, etc.) and particular examples of systemic injustice that occur in four works of literature, but no broader analysis that applies to a wider array of literature that ties this together into an encyclopedia article. I encourage course instructors to have their students improve existing articles rather than start new ones on such niche topics. Reywas92^Talk 02:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sigh. As everyone else has said, this is a student essay, not an encyclopedia article on a topic that meets wp's notability guidelines. @Maryamchamseddine: if you're ever back and notice this, sorry. Please tell your prof. -- asilvering (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay that almost violates WP:SOAPBOX. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and all of the above. This is an essay that runs afoul of WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:SIGCOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous votes. While interesting, it's an unencyclopedic essay, and clearly fails WP:NOR and WP:SOAPBOX. VickKiang (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brimsdown#Sport. or a sub-section as identified. Viable AtD with no policy based reason to keep Star Mississippi 17:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brimsdown F.C.[edit]

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

Just the same as the last time this was deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brimsdown_F.C., it's a non-notable club that plays at the 11th level of British Football and is non-notable. BrigadierG (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have played in the FA Vase, therefore notable. Kivo (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY was deprecated, this is no longer true BrigadierG (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't it be merged with Essex Alliance Football League or Brimsdown if NN? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge to Brimsdown might work. Merging this level detail on just one member club into the article on a league with over 70 members would be WP:UNDUE, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I would support a merge to Brimsdown, if nothing else so that the distinction between David Beckham's Brimsdown Rovers and Brimsdown FC is clear. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The club has paticipated in the FA Vase and it was decided many years ago that clubs which have competed in the FA Vase, regardless of their current level, are considered notable for articles on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was presumably part of the old WP:NFOOTY which was depreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete club fails WP:GNG. We don't need articles on every football club that's ever existed, we should only be keeping articles if they meet WP:GNG, which most small football teams at this level will not. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a subsection of Brimsdown#Sport. There is a lot of sourced encyclopaedic information here (judging by it being of the type that's included in articles about unquestionably notable football clubs) and so there is no justification to delete it from the encyclopaedia completely. However the strict reading of the notability guidelines currently in favour precludes it being a standalone article so it should be merged somewhere. Merging to the article about a league would be undue detail and they could be in a different league this time next year, and a third league a year after that. The article about the settlement it is named for and represents is the other obvious target, has the advantage of being a logical place for people to look for it who can't quite remember the name (is it United? Rovers? FC? AFC? Town? Athletic?) and doesn't suffer from the impermanence issues the league does. It will be slightly too long for the subsection, and it wouldn't surprise me if it needs to be split out again at some point relatively soon, but that's a question for the future when hopefully a more pragmatic attitude to notability guidelines will prevail. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Song of the Canefields[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NTVFILM, WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG. A BEFORE search revealed nothing useful in Japanese or English. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of value found in a search. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dryer Vent Wizard[edit]

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

Only trivial mentions. See WP:CORPDEPTH for list of trivial mentions. Trivial mentions include “best of” lists and sponsorship of charities, which account for all the non primary sources in the article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. The most-used ref is the organization's website. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 11 July 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!} 17:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Podhorzer[edit]

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

This unsourced BLP doesn't establish the notability of the subject. I can find a few sources mentioning Podhorzer's business dealings in passing, but no substantial coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, Middle East, and Israel. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (comment by User:Sir Joseph) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs should have no statement not backed by reliable sources, so when they have no sources they should be blank, and thus be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 11 July 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celiwe Nkambule[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources are trivial at best such as [12] and [13]. They both do not meet the 100 words criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (to not say keep) – Found sources → [14][15][16] – Nominator, seeing the current appearance of the article is not enough to nominate. Please, search for sources before doing this type of nominations.--MonFrontieres (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is sufficient coverage as indicated by MF. Giant Snowman 18:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two articles from the Times of Eswatini count as only one source: not only are they from the same paper (already failing independence from each other), they're by the same author. I do think that their coverage is significant, however. The CAF article is by the governing football association and is therefore not independent from the subject. So we have one SIGCOV source, can someone find another? JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep she at least meets GNG, have several mentions in the press about her playing/goals. Nothing substantial, but enough to verify. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does she meet GNG? She only has one SIGCOV source, and routine mentions do not contribute to GNG or BASIC. The issue is definitely not verifiability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources found by MonFrontieres which prove her notability in Swaziland. Additionally, she is captain of the Swaziland women's team and I found this source. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being captain of the Eswatini team has no relevance to her notability, which depends exclusively on how much she is covered by RS that are independent of her and of each other. Right now we have three Times articles that together count as one source of SIGCOV; can you find another by a different newspaper? JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why the CAF Online source needs to be discounted. If someone had an article in UEFA that showed significant coverage, I believe it would show notability. Same should apply for CAF. It's not as if Nkambule has paid for the coverage or anything. This along with the Times of Swaziland coverage shows that Nkambule has significant coverage in multiple sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone had an article in UEFA that showed significant coverage, I believe it would show notability. No, it most certainly would not. Organizations are not independent of their members, full stop. The point isn't (just) that there's the potential for the subject to influence their coverage; it's primarily the fact that orgs are obligated to promote themselves and therefore neither represent the real-world importance of a member nor depict them in a neutral light. Just like a high school administrative newsletter will report in detail on topics relevant to the high school that have no significance elsewhere, and will put the best positive spin on those topics. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or redirect if appropriate. We have one source of SIGCOV. Multiple are needed to meet GNG. Draftification would allow other editors to look more thoroughly for sources in other newspapers. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 18 July 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. This one seems to be on the edge of notability and could go either way. Sources provided by User:Oaktree b seem plausible, but weren't discussed at length here. There doesn't seem to be quite enough consensus to justify deleting the article at this time. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Heaven![edit]

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

I PRODed this, with the rationale: "Notability-tagged since 2013; appears to have been written by one of the book's authors. I can't find PW or Kirkus reviews, and no academic reviews, so fails WP:NBOOK." Dream Focus dePRODded it, rationale: "very easy to find sources for this bestselling book. Please search before you prod something". But "was an Apple bestseller" isn't a WP:NBOOK criterion, and the other link added (an interview with Alice Sebold) is just a passing mention. The other sources on the article are interviews, which are not independent. asilvering (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Social science. asilvering (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I remember reading this book shortly after it first came out, so it's been in print long enough to have achieved at least modest notability. Better sourcing that establishes notability would help, however. TH1980 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In print for x years" is not one of the notability criteria for books. Can you find any independent sources that discuss the book at length? -- asilvering (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concede your point. I've looked around online, and I've found independent sources are difficult to find, since no contemporaneous reviews that would establish notability have been web archieved.TH1980 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets mentioned in various places. Interviews do count towards notability, just can't be used as primary sources for information in the article. A reliable source decided a book was so notable that instead of just writing a short review about it, they interviewed the writer. Dream Focus 04:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews do not count towards notability. This is explicitly stated at WP:NBOOK: This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The word "advertise" as in they paid to have their book reviewed or themselves interviewed. See Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. Dream Focus 14:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That essay is clearly designed for handling biography articles, and in that context, I do indeed agree with it. It does not appear to be about or for books, and it is an essay that explicitly contradicts the SNG here. (Not to mention that when someone is invited to a talk show, they're probably there to talk about the concept, eg "after death communication", more than their book per se. And I note that After-death communication redirects to Mediumship, for lack of notability.) -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY states It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right. "Or" not "and". The GNG is met. Dream Focus 06:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, WP:GNG says that sources need to be independent to count towards notability. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly stop following me. Anyway, it clearly defines things as "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. The media with the interview is independent of the person they are interviewing, no one paying them to advertise this. Dream Focus 15:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not, this was on my Watchlist from when it was listed.

As seen in many other AfD discussions, interviews with the author aren't generally considered independent sources. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'd generally want better sources, as the two I found below. It counts towards building their brand, but not so much toward Wiki notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DreamFocus that some interviews may be considered for notability, specially when they have commentary but he writer, but in this case interviews do not help, because they make the author notable, not the book. We need citations to be about the book. Lovewiki106 (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is either WP:PASSING mentions or not independent of the subject. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep one non-trivial review here: [17] and the few others in the article. Discussion about it here, paywalled though [18]. Seems GNG is met. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Great find on the second one - that's an academic source that explicitly names the Guggenheims as the originators of the phrase "after-death communications". It doesn't discuss the work at length but does give context this article is really lacking. It also suggests to me that After-death communication is a viable article topic and doesn't need to be redirected to Mediumship. If anyone wants to argue for a Redirect to ADC, I'd support that and I can do a bit of tidying on that article. (What existed before it was redirected is not... great.) -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not proper. The interviews only help the author's notability not the book. Mostly sources just mention the book. Lovewiki106 (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: of the sources presented, only the Chattooga Press review is substantial enough to count towards establishing notability. Looking for similar newspaper reviews turned up nothing usable. Discussion in Kwilecki 2009 amounts to a single paragraph (of which about a third is a long quote from the book). Interviews can contribute to establishing notability, and it's vaguely possible that one or more of the four offline sources cited would be substantial enough to be of use, but it doesn't seem like anyone's been able to access them to confirm one way or the other (they were all added to the article by the article creator, who hasn't edited since 2013). As such, I think we have to set them to one side and work with the sources at hand, which aren't sufficient to indicate WP:NB or WP:GNG is met. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob49[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, no WP:RS refs seem to exist Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of our inclusion criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 11 July 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minor League Baseball lists[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN; this is something resembling a template, from what I can make of it. It does not warrant an article. – Meena • 21:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lists. – Meena • 21:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Template:List of Minor League Baseball Lists and convert to template form as even the nominator says it’s better as a template, fix it over deleting it. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it facilitates navigation per MOS:LIST#Navigation. It's organized into sections and subsections, so it provides something simple categories don't. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as User:Clarityfiend stated, the sections and subsections aid navigation in ways that a category (or template) cannot. In addition, some of the articles included here are not just lists but do contain a list related to Minor League Baseball. So, it would probably not be appropriate to place a template within those, and their association with other, related lists would be lost. Also, navigation templates are not shown on mobile devices. Waz⁸:T-C-E 03:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list is useful and meets our WP:LISTN guideline. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NLIST and navigational purpose is better served by a category or template. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guideline for a list has been met, this a valid navigational list. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates clearly states you can have the information in more than one place, and you should not delete one because you prefer a different format. Dream Focus 06:26, 13 July 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 as per rough consensus. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of football stadiums in Ecuador[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:LISTN or warrant a standalone article considering the small size of the list. – Meena • 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Ecuador. – Meena • 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page because I thought we should have a list for Ecuador, as there are lists of football stadiums about all other South American countries

And for "not having enough information for a stand-alone list", List of football stadiums in Paraguay has even less details than that of Ecuador

If it is about no cites on the page, I could go and search for one and add it back

May I know what is the reason for planning to delete?

Thanks ChampsRT (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I disparage this argument this is a prime example of a list serving a navigational purpose per WP:LISTN. There are scores of these in Category:Lists of association football stadiums, and it's an appropriate way to list such places with additional detail in the table. Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Football venues in Ecuador. "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Yes, it lacks sources, but that's not a reason for deletion in itself. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful for navigation and information which meets our guideline for lists at WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valid navigation and informational list. Dream Focus 06:27, 13 July 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. Name question can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 15:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of left-handed United States presidents[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Trivia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information TartarTorte 20:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is notable per our WP:NLIST guideline: it is focussed and it is not indiscriminate. It fulfills informational and navigation, purposes. The article has 15 16 references which include the Washington Post and The New York Times and there are more references which WP:NEXIST. Bruxton (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the WP:LISTPURP part of WP:NLIST is a stronger argument to go on, but of the three main purposes of a list, I think that this might be informational, but that's arguably still trivia; however, I do not think that the list fulfills a valid navigational function. Per LISTPURP a list's purpose in navigations as a natural [table] of contents and [index] of Wikipedia. My argument for it being indiscriminate is not that it has a lack of focus, as it is accurate and focused, it is per merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. from WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TartarTorte 19:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bruxton and rename List of left-handed and ambidextrous presidents of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could we make the title a little bit longer? Jacona (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere near challenging Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Destined for greatness! Jacona (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per INDISCRIMINATE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, as this is a topic of reporting and significant to concepts of representation. BD2412 T 21:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if i was judging a book by its covers only, the title of the article might suggest this is fribulous. However, the article is well sourced and there are academic sources that have researched this topic. whether a topic is superfluous or frivulous is actually a subjective measure that i think we should not use in judging articles (otherwise other long-standing curious articles would have been gone. the best measure remains whether good sources exist on the topic. thank you. Al83tito (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I cannot concur with the toilet paper argument - see WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why. I will reiterate again that IMO this article which is little more than a stub, is INDISCRIMINATE, and for its size has an unusual plethora of sources. One can source almost anything if one tries hard enough. Just because an article has sources does not make it appropriate or a notable topic for Wikipedia. This is the kind of trivia that Quora is famous for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NOTTRIVIA (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ buidhe, the fallacy that i believe you are point out (“what about x”) is a fallacy if “x” were a bad, unvetted article. I understand that my point may have come across that way. Let me rephrase it: it is my understanding that the toilet paper article has been thoroughly vetted. It therefore is a manifestation of the rigorous application of the wikipedia policies and guidelines. The point it helps demonstrate is that it doesn't matter if to a group of people something feels frivolous; the question is whether reliable sources exist covering the topic, which is a much more objective measure. The wiki guidelines further point out that notability can even be established within a very niche field or topic, as long as reliable sources exist.

The argument that this article has too many sources and therefore should be deleted, is a surprising one to me. Using this logic, this is a situation where “damned if you, and damned if you don’t”; if it has too few sources, let’s delete it, and if it has too many, let’s delete it.

I think we should go back to the basics, and beyond the potential risibility of the title, see if it has reliable sources. And maybe consider a different title, for example “lefthandedness in US presidents” (and pardon my grammar if i am making a mistake), so we move away from the article being primarily defined as a list, and more towards an article that covers the scholarship on the topic. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you raise an important point. I do think part of why this list "feels" problematic (besides the topic itself which some object to) is because it is a list that has already expanded into article territory when it comes to the size of the prose (also relative to the size of the list). I would support keeping the list but moving it to an article page called Lefthandedness in US presidents, which could be further expanded if needed, if there is consensus for such a move. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there is a mix of both academic and mainstream media sources validating the notability of this list, which has clear criteria for inclusion. Understand that the topic seems trivial to some, but other objections sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As long as Bias against left-handed people exists, this is a highly relevant and serious topic for many. I wouldn't change the name of the article but the alternate title incorporating "ambidextrous" might be a reasonable redirect. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:10, 14 July 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) 13:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Donahue[edit]

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

Lack of notability; most sources used are either primary (the academic institutions that the subject is affiliated to), or non-independent secondary (college newspaper to which the subject is affiliated. There is also the possibility of sockpuppetry as the main contributors have only or mostly just edited this article (see edit logs of Curation architecture, Foxstreet9, Archhistory_curator). Further this article was previously deleted in 2008 (but maybe for a different person of the same name?) also for lack of notability, and in 2021 a draft of the article was deemed not publishable for similar reasons. Some potential counterarguments to deletion are that albeit brief, the article is well structured, appears to include citations for all claims, is well illustrated, and the subject has received some awards. Al83tito (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Almost all of the citations either have a connection to the subject, are self-published, or include a passing mention. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An uncomprehensive WP:BEFORE check found multiple other Alex Donahues, and the same types of citations bad for WP:GNG. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems WP:NOTYET to me. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he lacks in depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG Kazanstyle (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and appears to only exist in order to promote the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This AfD itself was speedily deleted as vandalism, but subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 13 concluded that the speedy deletion was inappropriate, but this AfD should be speedily keep as it was renominated too soon after the first AfD with no new arguments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haya Maraachli[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this again because there was no valid argument in previous nomination and notability was not proved in any way. Arguments for keep was "keep because you didn't state a valid reason" which was not true as I stated a lot of valid arguments.

"Currently there are 3 links in the article (2 ref and 1 external link) and none of them is a reliable source. None. Zero. All three of them has Edit button in their pages. All three links can be edited by anyone, anything can be added or edited by anyone on all three sites. So, nothing is verifiable in the first place."

That is still the case, there is zero reliable reference in the article right now.

Another argument for keep was 750K google search results but I said when you actually try to browser pages further it's actually ~100 results and I said I couldn't find any "significant coverage" from reliable sources among them and nobody provided that either. None of the keep voters were able to provide a significant coverage from reliable sources. Someone provided 3 links with a quick search and they consist no significant coverage or reliable source.

I hope this time it gets a more careful examination and valid arguments. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. I found sensationalist tabloid content, e.g. about her clothes, looks, whom she is dating/engaged to, photos of her brother, as well as promotional content churned from her Instagram, non-RS wikis and social media. The three pages of Google news results are often accompanied by images of her and are mostly from one website that appears to be a tabloid. Her non-RS IMDB page also does not indicate significant roles in multiple notable productions. She is mentioned in an article based on an interview by The Arab Weekly with the director of a Syrian TV series in 2019, but I have not found independent and reliable sources with sufficient secondary and BLP-compliant coverage to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. She appears notable. I do acknowledge limitations in my ability to assess the quality of Arabic language sources, and also while a lot of it is tabloid, about her looks and her relationships, examples:
https://al-arrab.com/2022/06/11/%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84-%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF/

https://www.elfann.com/arab-celebrities/1321003/%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84-%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%81-%D8%B4%D9%83%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%85%D8%9F--%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9

https://alghad.com/%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7/

Sources also talk about her television work here:

https://www.sayidaty.net/node/1408756/%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%B1/%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8/%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%81%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%A5%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B2%D8%A9

Likewise, this one starts with gossip style content, but then discusses her work:

https://7al.net/2022/03/17/%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%B4-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B4%D9%83%D9%84-%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D9%84/malek/various/

As I pointed out in the recent AfD (which closed yesterday (I think) as "keep") the existence of English and French language sources, the existence of international attention (Lebanon) also suggests notability. The tendency for media to focus on the superficial should not detract from her roles in multiple productions, and there are people who are notable for reasons that I consider only superficial - there are articles about models and beauty pageant winners. I am also influenced by how recent this AfD is to one closing keep (yesterday or the day before) we should not need to keep repeating arguments like this. I made the !vote weak due to my inability to assess the quality of the sources and the tabloid nature of some content. CT55555 (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CT55555, have you been able to identify significant roles in multiple notable productions?

The first source listed is titled "You will not believe how Haya Marachli looks before and after plastic surgery.. you will be shocked!!" (Al-Arrab, Google Translate) and links to "Read also: Haya Maraachli is turning her life upside down... And the reason is her husband's religion? - with evidence" (Al-Arrab, Google Translate). The second source is titled "Haya Marachli 8 years ago... Is her appearance different from today? -Picture" (elfann, Google Translate). This tabloid content is not suitable for inclusion per WP:NOTGOSSIP.
In the section described as a discussion of her television work, the first article is titled (Google translated) "In pictures, Haya Maraachli draws attention with a look", includes a picture from her Instagram, and the main story is about her pictures, with brief mentions "Haya Maraachli was absent from the last Ramadan drama season, while she finished filming her scenes in the series “Less Than Adi” [...] Haya's last attendance was by participating in the series "Quaid Unknown"." This does not indicate significant roles in multiple notable productions. The last source listed reports rumors from "The Lebanese "Art" website" about her getting married, includes more of her Instagram pictures, but does state "Haya Maraachli is currently participating in filming her role in a joint Arab drama series, called “Less Than Adi”" and "her father is actor Tariq Maraachli, her mother is actress Randa Maraachli, her paternal grandmother is the Syrian actress Nahid Al-Halabi and her grandfather is the artist Ibrahim Maraachli" and "She presented her first television role at the age of six years, in the series “Abu Al-Fawmehiya” in 2003, but the role that she presented to the audience was in 2011, when she participated in the series “Women’s Sessions” directed by Al-Muthanna Sobh, and in 2011 she won the award for the best emerging Syrian artist".

These sources are tabloid and superficial in the sense that they lack detail and depth about the significance of her roles and the notability of the productions. I support keeping articles at AfD for beauty pageant winners, social media influencers, etc, when there are sufficient sources to support notability, but this type of coverage, in what do not appear to be independent and reliable sources, does not help develop an encyclopedia article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the NOTGOSSIP thing and I think it does not apply, I see this as applying to sources that only contain gossipy content. The source I've listed talk about her marraaige, sectarian differences between her and her husband's family, biographical information and her work, focussing on her work, here's the quotes from the two that mention it (using google translate):

"Haya Maraachli was absent from the last Ramadan drama season, while she finished filming her scenes in the series “Less Than Adi” by Syrian director Nour Arnaout and written by Yam Mashhadi and produced by Ebla International, where the work was filmed in Lebanon. Haya's last attendance was by participating in the series "Quaid Unknown" directed by Al-Sadir Masoud, where she participated in the work championship with Abdel Moneim Amayri, Basil Khayat, Nazli Al-Rawas and other"

The second one:

"Haya Maraachli is currently participating in filming her role in a joint Arab drama series, called “Less Than Adi”, and artistic sources confirm that her participation in this series will be a starring role for the first time in her artistic career.

The series is directed by Nour Arnaout, produced by Ebla International Company for Artistic Production, and along with Haya Jihad Saeed, Wissam Sabbagh, Marwa Al-Atrash and Carmen Labs, in addition to many artists, participates.

Haya Maraachli is considered one of the most prominent young Syrian actresses recently."

So the sources seem a tabloid. I read the tabloid bit at BLP and it seems concerned about accurate information. I'm assuming the content about her acting is accurate.

Anyway, the main thing on my mind as I assess this: is she notable, I still think yes. As per my second source, she is noted as being one of the most prominent Syrian recent women actors. CT55555 (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a starring role for the first time in her artistic career" seems to confirm that she has not had significant roles in multiple notable productions. It also does not confirm that her upcoming role is in a notable production, and even if it is, one significant role is not sufficient for WP:NACTOR notability. That a tabloid-style publication churning her Instagram content also vaguely writes that she is considered "one of the most prominent young Syrian actresses recently" does not appear to be an independent and reliable assessment of a career without any significant roles in notable productions. She does appear to be self-promotional, and is covered sensationally by tabloids, including with rumors and things "heard through the grapevine", but this type of prominence does not support inclusion per the guidelines and policies. We also need more than her relationships to notable people to support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about this all being from one TV show. I'm reconsidering...meanwhile..

Do you consider that we should give any benefit of doubt in the context of:

The local news media operating in country in the midst of a civil war?
Our presumed reliance on machine translation?
I think Syria is the top five worst countries for women's rights, the over focus on her looks etc isn't her fault. High brow media probably is a bit focussed on other things, we might need to rely a bit on tabloidy newspapers for entertainment topics?

Does the English and French and international (Lebanon) media attention give this any extra notability, in your opinion? CT55555 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added emphasis to WP:BLP concerns because of some reactions to her clothing that I read, which are more severe than simple gawking, and implicate women's rights generally, which seem to make it more of a concern to rely on sensationalist tabloid content than the usual prohibition. A lack of attention from independent and reliable sources seems more attributable to her lack of an established acting career and apparent prominence based mostly on her own self-promotion, which does not justify reliance on tabloid content. She also appears to be of Lebanese descent, and traveled to Lebanon for filming, so attention from Lebanese media does not seem to bolster notability, unless it is non-trivial coverage in independent and reliable sources. I have not found much English or French sourcing, and one source in French: Haya Maraachli avec un look distinctif en noir (newshours24, Dec. 2021) is a blog-style publication that churns her Instagram content and offers similar vague waves at a non-notable acting career. As to the use of Google Translate, given the poor quality of the sources and limited content about her career, I think the translations adequately help us determine there is insufficient support for notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You've convinced me to remove my weak keep. I'm not ready to vote delete, so I'm essentially abstaining from here. Best, CT55555 (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7: No credible claims of significance. Regards So Why 08:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiradello[edit]

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

No significant independent secondary coverage found. Refs 1&3 are unreliable, 2 is a broken link. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS found by WP:NEXIST. Not sure how this can speeded and AFDd at the same time. gidonb (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know about AfD plus speedy either, but the person who added on the speedy is an experienced administrator. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's a code: no indication of notability. That sounds correct! gidonb (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, if approving the speedy, please also close this discussion. gidonb (talk) 22:45, 10 July 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!} 17:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ames[edit]

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

Made 2 professional appearances in the 1950s but lacks the coverage to provide notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this newspaper search centred on the 1950s doesn't seem to yield any significant coverage. Should be deleted without prejudice to being recreated if someone locates either offline or online significant coverage of Ames in the future. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 17 July 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. Time to close after 3+ weeks. Obviously, there won't be more people participating in this discussions so I'm going to close this as No Consensus. This can always be returned to AFD at another time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Leib[edit]

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

Very few references, does not appear to follow notability guidelines Gtag10 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gtag10 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He has a biographical entry in this academic reference work: Werner Ebnet (2016). "Leib, Georg". Sie haben in München gelebt: Biografien aus acht Jahrhunderten. Allitera Verlag. p. 363. ISBN 9783869069111. That's the only SIGCOV I could find, but I do think it indicates that the subject has sustaining notability given that a 2016 reference work is writing about him more than a hundred years after his death. I also think its likely that there are more German language references on this person and that SIGCOV could be met if better searchers than myself participate (searching in German isn't a strong skill set of mine).4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Personality: Reality and Illusion[edit]

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

Article about a documentary film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As usual, films are not given an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, and must show external validation in third-party sources of their significance (notable film awards, critical analysis by professional film critics, etc.) -- but the only claim of notability on offer here is existence, and the only "sources" are IMDb and the self-published website of one of the filmmakers. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 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) 13:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno the Bandit[edit]

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

Current sources are the comic itself, unreliable directories, and one non-notable award. Sections have been unsourced since 2008 with none forthcoming. No better sources found in a WP:BEFORE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only claim to notability is being nominated for, but not winning, a minor award. As stated by the nom, none of the current sources included in the article are suitable for establishing notability. I was unable to find any coverage of the comic itself in reliable sources, nor any reviews on the physical book releases collecting it. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant independent coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm surprised I'm not finding anything at all either. Too bad. Thank you for all these deletion nominations so far, I've had a great time going through them! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:49, 11 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbinders[edit]

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

Sources are mostly the comic itself, social media, or unreliable sources (YouTube, Kickstarter, self published blogs). What little is sourced is mostly WP:COATRACK about an unrelated Kickstarter campaign. I was unable to find anything better in a WP:BEFORE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources not as described. Artw (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? The only other secondary source I see that's actually about the comic is 404 and not archived. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Houston Chronical, Sequential Tart and the Comics Beat article about the very much related Kickstarter for a start. Artw (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Weird situation with the Bleeding Cool, Comics Beat, and USA Today article because they don't name the original webcomic that "Crimson Rhen of The True North" is a prequel to. The Gizmodo article does describe the relation, luckily. More importantly, the Chron.com and Sequential Tart show longer-term interest in the subject. The article suggests Comic Book Resources has also mentioned the webcomic, but it seems impossible to confirm this now somehow. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To me this meets notability criteria through coverage in the the Houston Chronicle, Sequential Tart, The Beat, and io9. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sequential Tart and The Beat are considered reliable sources by the webcomics wikiproject's established standards. The Houston Chronicle article looks good to me too. --Kiz o r 22:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kizor Is there a webcomic equivalent of WP:VGRS? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, but IMHO the near trivial coverage of the trolling incicent during the crowdfunding is not sufficient to show this has achieved any wider significance and such. WP:SIGCOV doesn't appear to be met, there's no enduring reception, this hasn't won any awards or received reliable reviews (ping me if you think I am missing some sources and I'll reconsider my vote). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 18 July 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. Star Mississippi 15:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for Peace and Socialism[edit]

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

Despite the high-sounding name, this "Movement for Peace and Socialism" is a de facto unknown party. Its founder, Nino Pasti, is certainly encyclopedic, even if he does not have his own page in enwikipedia, but the same cannot be said of this micro underground movement. On the web there are very few mentions of this party, in sources that in any case do not deal with this party but refer exclusively to the activity of Nino Pasti. Finally, the page states that this party still exists, but in reality there is currently not the slightest trace of this party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A political party is relevant for Wikipedia not just because of its electoral results, but also because of its longevity and relevance. This extra-parliamentary party is little-known today, but clearly deserves a space in our encyclopedia, whose whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. It may be difficult to find sources on an old minor political party, but the MPS counts 8,000+ Google hits and even some Google Books hits (also in German). --Checco (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rather obscure party, the artiicle doesn't have any WP:RS. Also, no inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no sources are given for the existence and relevance of this party. Yakme (talk) 14:41, 12 July 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!} 02:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sajad Hussain Malik[edit]

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

Badly put together puff piece created by blocked sock and reeking of UPE, this article's sourcing is to paid pieces (note the number that talk about his "illustrious career beating all odds"). However, as either a sports coach or police officer, Malik is most definitely not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is notable about 'Sajad Hussain Malik ' who is former Indian Volleyball player and head coach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:81:B49D:F78:976A:9B4A:B3E8 (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Sajad Hussain Malik is official and notable, so don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:105:A329:E2A3:C71:BDC8:9820 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coach of the junior volleyball team isn't notable, neither is the rest of it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rangeblock the sockpuppet IP too. They are canvassing people to "help to remove discussion". Pfft. That backfired a bit, eh? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly fails GNG. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey men. You can see this article source which is popular news agency of india and this article is about coach of volleyball in men's league.So, r nt delete it and close the discussion. 2409:4054:9C:F5C5:0:0:2AF7:48AD (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and shut it down now. If it's a puff piece by a sock, it's a puff piece by a sock, and I think the comments in here show it sure is. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the IPs are clearly the same person, as they all keep posting roughly the same comment and always at the top of this page (I keep moving them down here to the correct location). Zinnober9 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're essentially going "Hey! I'm a blocked user! Here are all my sock IPS!" FrederalBacon (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is official article about person Sajad Hussain Malik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4054:50F:21F5:E72:1F8A:7D:83EF (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close article discussion about Deletion,this article should keep because it is officially notable and offical by news agency of India sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4054:11D:8B99:543B:F595:92AD:DB6D (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~This article is notable and offical So please close discussion about Sajad Hussain Malik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamir Naik Ixa (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)~~ Comment by confirmed Sockpuppet[reply]

As i Seen this article and i found this article is about indian volleyball coach which is at national level considered by Indian news agency.so please close the delete discussion and keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4054:9C:F5C5:0:0:2AF7:48AD (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I seen this article and I found this article is about Indian athlete which is official and notable considered by news agencies of india and should keep on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4054:90:8A43:6A6B:18A0:93D2:9D85 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Article fails WP:GNG Zinnober9 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete He is the coach of Volleyball premiere league Teams of Indian State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4054:40D:3E47:86EE:6C5:DB3D:F140 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is official about person Sajad Hussain Malik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4054:314:CE2C:837C:EAA6:3EF0:12CB (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close About Article deletion discussion regarding Sajad Hussain Malik. Don't do that. I was searching for that article. It is very notable person here. I see there are lot of sources about it. The article about Sajad Hussain Malik is notable and offical because it denotes a person biography which is considered in many official Indian news agency Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4054:40E:730B:4E61:CFF2:FB8D:939 (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Someone please deal with this, and the IPs clearly socking. StartOkayStop (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is all over the place. Sheesh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, and rangeblock the IP. Someone is trying a tad to hard to prenpreventvent deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article is about head coach of indian Prime Volleyball League . So, do noy delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4054:493:DE79:28A1:49FF:E9A9:D198 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is head coach of ahmedabad defenders in prime volleyball league. Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambhai1 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zap! (webcomic)[edit]

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

Tagged for sources and notability for over a decade with none forthcoming. Zero sources found in a WP:BEFORE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced, and the only claim to notability in the article is being nominated for, but not winning, a minor award. I searched for sources using both the real name, as well as the "Zap in Space" title mentioned in the article, and was unable to find anything aside from very brief mentions. I could not find any coverage or reviews of the comic itself. Rorshacma (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Pascalle Lepas seems to be better known for Wilde Life, and I found two solid sources kinda about Zap! through that: [19] and [20]. However, that's it. Nothing specifically about Zap!, and two sources is not enough anyway. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder singh balyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL never won any state or national election. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ROTM party functionary. Mccapra (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the secretary of a party doesn't inherently make you notable, not to mention the numerous grammar and capitalization mistakes. CLYDE FRANKLIN 14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know what the old version looked like, but a article by the same person about the same person with a properly capitalized name (Ravinder Singh Balyan) was deleted because of a expired PROD. CLYDE FRANKLIN 04:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Botond Földi[edit]

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

Stats stub on a footballer that appears to fail WP:GNG. I searched in Google News to find only squad list mentions. A Hungarian source search yields some articles on him but, upon closer inspection, these are non-independent as they are websites for clubs that he used to play for or now plays for like Vasas Academy and FC Ajka. GNG requires significant coverage that is independent of the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Avilich (talk) 14:28, 13 July 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. Star Mississippi 15:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

League for Marche[edit]

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

A very small local party, it is practically almost impossible to find sources concerning it on the web. We only know that it was founded by the local politician Enzo Marangoni and that it ran in the provincial elections of Macerata in 2011 (without the election of any councilor). It does not seem to meet the principles of general notability in the least. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. The subject is a political party which was represented in the Regional Council of Marche and is sourced. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but the party existed. If there is no consensus on keeping it as a stand-alone article, let's merge it with League for Marche. --Checco (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that this party has ever officially been represented at the regional council of Marche and even the sources on this party are almost non-existent...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia. Very few sources can be found about this party. P1221 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:P1221. Yakme (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UA-Football[edit]

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

fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. Akevsharma (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Ukraine. Akevsharma (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's possibly the biggest Footbal related news site in Ukraine. Could be notable. --IgorTurzh (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. it's possibly the biggest Footbal related news site in Ukraine.- this doesn't make it automatically notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 11 July 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. JBW (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tutra Pahari, Goremara[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE did not turn up anything to indicate notability. I could be missing hindi-language results though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Hinduism, India, and Jharkhand. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — didn't find any either. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 13:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fok[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability as a private tutor, no matter how "super", is quite the reach. One article about him and one partially about him are borderline. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, withdraw nomination. There is sufficient media notice, including international. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 July 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!} 06:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ercy Leka[edit]

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

Article about a music producer that fails WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Sources are mostly PR news release and about us pages. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Albania, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Easily non-notable from just a glimpse of his page (considering his lack of notable output). No results on Google Books or from any actual news outlets. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits in Gnews or books, anything in regular Google is press-releases. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evgenii Dainov[edit]

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

The article does not cite any reliable sources, and the only reference given is Dainov's personal page at the University of Amsterdam, which is now a dead link. The situation has not improved since 2007 when the article was created, and a quick Google search shows no evidence of notability. HPfan4 (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Bulgaria. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a BLP sourced only by a deadlink, without evidence of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability. The article states that he is the author of "three major monographs", but for notability we would need multiple published reviews and we do not have even the titles of these books through which we might attempt to find the reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We Love Our Enterprises Festival[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and the article is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see something related has been deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Love Our Enterprises Movement. SL93 (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources. Femke (talk) 13:07, 10 July 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!} 06:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malda C C Girls High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no notability found. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL institution, fails WP:NSCHOOL. I'm happy to change my vote, if good Bengali sources are found. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NSCHOOL, two refs can't be opened, can't find reliable refs. VickKiang (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 12 July 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 clusterfuck. Quoting myself from the last one: This catastrophically huge nomination is so big that XfDcloser is having a seizure whilst trying to close it. No prejudice against speedy renomination individually or in smaller batches. As the removal of the AfD templates can't be done automatically by XfDcloser, I will ask the nominator to do it - no one else should have to spend their time cleaning up this mess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Bulgaria

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Bulgaria[edit]

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

Not a single independent source with significant coverage. Article is entirely made up of content from sources directly affiliated with or owned by the LDS Church. ––FormalDude talk 05:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following nearly 100 related articles for the same reason:

I found this page very helpful during my visit to Genova, italy! 93.49.118.229 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over 80 of them were created by the same editor. I recognize that it is very possible for some similar topics such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ireland to be considered notable because they have significant coverage in independent sources. These articles I've listed are not that; they were all hastily created and do not meet notability guidelines. As they stand they are essentially religious promotion. ––FormalDude talk 06:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Bulgaria. ––FormalDude talk 05:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a lot of the articles about the LDS in other countries is provided by LDS sources. I promise I'm not being a jerk when I say this but If we get rid of this article are we also going to get rid of the others that look similar? Because there are a lot that look like this one. (Austria Belgium Croatia Caucasus Hong Kong Turkey United Kingdom) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is it really that surprising that the people interested enough in the history of a particular religion to write books, articles, and newspaper stories about it are its members?--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude Honest question, do we want to do these as one large batch (is that allowed?) or do we want to do them one article at a time? Sorry if this sounds stupid I'm still kind of new to NPP. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that they are all pretty much the same–a start class article with a few paragraphs or less from sources directly from the LDS Church, I think it is more than okay to have a MULTIAFD. ––FormalDude talk 06:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude would you be opposed to adding these pages as well?

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those do all also appear to suffer the same exact issues–except for Czech Republic, South Korea, Bahrain, Thailand, the Isle of Man, and Wales. Those ones have significant independent sources. I'll add the rest that don't though. ––FormalDude talk 08:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opss yeah a couple of those had an independent source. I think you should check the Czech Republic, Bahrain, and South Korea again. Sources from Ensign are LDS https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1985/05/news-of-the-church/tabernacle-choir-to-tour-japan?lang=eng and Cumoarah.com is a little harder to pin down it bills itself as an "International Resources for Latter-day Saints". Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain has two Deseret News articles and one Salt Lake Tribune article. South Korea has multiple book references. Czech Republic is the only one that's somewhat borderline. ––FormalDude talk 09:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Finnish article in specific, Procedurally oppose the mass-AfD in general. This review article, and these research articles [21] [22] [23] [24] demonstrate that significant independent scholarly coverage is available at least for the LDS church in Finland. In general, nominating a hundred+ articles in a single AfD is not reasonable, as nobody is going to be able to make any kind of an WP:BEFORE for more than one or two. I suggest slowly listing these in smaller chunks of perhaps 5 or so over time. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles on the Cook Islands and French Polynesia specifically. These seem like they cover the ground, and French Polynesia is C-class. Procedurally opposed to the mass-AfD - articles should be considered on their individual merits.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand. The Troughton ref was independent - are you sure it did not have significant coverage? Anyway, I have added a little more info to the article with two additional independent sources. Article was already C-class. It needs more work, but deletion not justified. Nurg (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; most of these articles are not individually marked for deletion, not giving a real chance to their editors to respond. The articles listed here are of varied lengths, detail, and referencing. Lumping them all together makes for an unwieldy and not thoughtful discussion. Performing a brief review of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Korea I see a lengthy article, with multiple sources and plenty of referencing. A discussion might be had if the books used as references are not allowable, but that is a detailed discussion to be had for that article specifically. Al83tito (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Korea in my nomination and I explained why. The articles listed here are all of the same length, detail, and referencing; start class articles that do nothing but regurgitate content directly from the LDS Church. ––FormalDude talk 00:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also all these articles have been tagged with the an AfD notice and all of the authors have been notified. ––FormalDude talk 00:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I lack time to comment this time as I have in past disputes, so this maybe my only comment for this dispute. This is not the first time this has come up for discussion on these articles, with the most recent occurrence being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Maine, which was conducted a little over a year ago with the result of Keep. Now this and similar pages are being renominated for deletion in mass. If reasons now are different, please state why. Again, I've got a busy schedule outside of Wikipedia right now, and will not be able to contribute to this discussion this week like I did in the past. Thanks, --Dmm1169 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all on procedural grounds. These should be vetted one by one. This will allow the nominator to conduct a serious WP:BEFORE search (D.) as well as for participants interested in certain countries to show up with arguments about sources. It is certainly not inconceivable that for a very large percentage of these articles the sources actually cited are not the only sources that exist out there; both scholars and journalists habitually cover religious minority communities. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several of these pages that I and my students have worked on that should (now) fulfill notability criteria. I agree that many of these types of pages do not pass notability criteria in their present state, but a page like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia has multiple independent sources, as well as many church ones. I personally added a lot of information to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Africa, and another one of of my students worked on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ghana. The current list is not just "start class articles that do nothing but regurgitate content directly from the LDS Church" (but I agree that many of them are). I have long-term plans for my team to work on all of the country + LDS church articles, but it will take us a while to get to them all. I agree with the idea of discussing articles individually. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: I was going to snow close this nomination, but it appears that, due to the sheer number of articles nominated here (over 100), XfDCloser is breaking. The closing administrator will probably have to make several-hundred edits in order to close this correctly. FormalDude, in the future could you please clump less articles in the same nomination? 20 is a lot; 100 is un-workable. --VersaceSpace 🌃 15:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It will require extensive work to go through this articles and look for secondary sources. This is way too many to do at once and even if we could the discussion will be hard to follow with so many articles.--Jahaza (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many of these articles cite either Deseret News or other journals owned by the LDS. While perhaps it would be better to find less overtly Church-affiliated sources, does that reasonably entail their deletion? To my knowledge, none of them have been listed as deprecated. Further, as noted above, it's not unheard of for sources about a religion to be written by people affiliated with that religion. IMO, delete only those articles whose only sources are directly from the LDS Church. I.E., if it only cites the LDS website or something more directly connected. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Botswana is a good example of an article that only has citations directly published by the LDS. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[D]elete only those articles whose only sources are directly from the LDS Church would go directly against the notability guidelines, because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Just because an article currently has bad sourcing does not mean that sourcing doesn't exist. That's why any mass nominations like this is so massively problematic. Ljleppan (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hold seperate Afd's on each. So far, I was able to add some sources on the Philippines article in this AfD and I think the other articles might be worked on if they are discussed seperately. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources such as Deseret News are acceptable for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this AFD is going to need to be closed manually as XFDCloser is not loading correctly despite my efforts to adjust the templates at the top. I do not recommend nominating over 100 pages in one AFD, there are many reasons why this is a terrible idea but the amount of work the closer must do to handle each article is a big one. I think this discussion will extend over a week until someone has the time and inclination to handle it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 17 July 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. But there does seem to be consensus that a redirect to a list article would be preferable for this person and similar figures. Sandstein 08:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pantaleon of Pydna[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG as no significant coverage exists in reliable sources. All that is known of Pantaleon is a single mention in Arrian, and where reliable sources mention him, it is simply to restate the one fact that we know about him from that mention. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would prefer to redirect to some kind of list, rather than deleting, but I am struggling to find a suitable target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was thinking the same thing as Peterkingiron. Is it possible we could make a list of Greek (or perhaps Hellenistic) military officers, with one- or two-sentence summaries, and links to those who have their own articles? It wouldn't need to be complete or perfect, but it would provide a way to save content from articles such as this one, and group related articles. P Aculeius (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there is enough secondary coverage -- 1, 2, 3 -- to merit an article. Failing that, redirect to Companion cavalry. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that any of those constitute significant coverage; they are all simply repeating the single fact about Pantaleon that we know from Arrian. Redirecting to Companion cavalry seems likely to be more confusing than anything, as he is not (and should not be!) mentioned there. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why he has to be directly mentioned at Companion cavalry. The most important fact about the subject was that he was a hetairos, so why not redirect any interested reader who searches for him to the relevant article?

Failing that, perhaps we could redirect to Pantaleon (disambiguation). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of possible redirects, it would help if one was proposed over the others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, apparently not in the RE. T8612 (talk) 03:07, 17 July 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. Star Mississippi 15:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIBA Under-16 Women's Asian Championship[edit]

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

2022 FIBA Under 16 Women's Asian Championship

Article about a youth sports championship that has not received significant coverage and so does not satisfy general notability or sports notability. This is a continental youth championship, and youth championships have never had a presumption of notability even before the revision of the notability guidelines, so that only general notability applies. Review of the sources shows that the first one is not about the youth tournament, and the other sources are by FIBA, the international basketball association, and so are not independent or secondary. Two of the sources are about other events and one is a database entry. One of them is significant coverage, but is not independent or secondary.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Jordantimes.com	The coverage is not about the youth team or youth tournament	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
2	fiba.basketball	By the sports association, about a senior competition	No	No	Yes	No
3	fiba.basketball	By the sports association, about the 2019 competition	No	No	Yes	No
4	fiba.basketball	By the sports association, ranking of U16 teams	No	Yes	Yes	No
5	fiba.basketball	By the sports association, about the subject competition	No	Yes	Yes	No

An article was created in article space, and was moved by reviewer User:UnitedStatesian to draft space. This copy of the article was then created in article space. Th~~ere is already a draft, and th~~is article does not satisfy general notability, so should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Basketball, and Asia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The draft has been redirected to this article, so the article can be either deleted or moved back to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on the term "does not satisfy general notability or sports notability" of this article. As you mentioned, this is a continental youth tournament, and please bear in mind that this is a main qualifier to the World Championship. It appears that since this is a women's tournament, it is being stereotyped as a lesser important tournament as compared to that of men's tournament. Hoping that my point is taken into consideration, and wishing that this article can be removed into Articles for deletion consideration, as more details with proper references are being added. Alexander marshall 07 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Alexander marshall 07 I hope you also address the question on your talk page about the title of this article. Regpath (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Regpath

You already modified the first sentence of this article to FIBA U16 Women's Asian Championship so I think your question is now irrelevant. If you will notice the previous editions, I am just following the traditional format and nobody reacted like this until now. If this will be the case, all other tournaments in every continent including the previous edition must be nominated for deletion as well (echoing the comments from @Hariboneagle927). Alexander marshall 07 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until more secondary/independent sources showing significant coverage are added. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment then the 2022 FIBA U16 Women's European Championship, even the previous editions (for every continent as well) should be nominated as well.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify- Per XtraJovial. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Hell no. Who proposed this deletion? What is their intention? Basketball is a global sport, this tournament is the seventh edition of an age group continental championship in Asia. How many continents do we have in this world? How many sports receive wider audience than basketball on this planet? Not significant enough for an article? What a joke. 2001:8003:9008:1301:754B:EFE0:D55D:9F7D (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be ample coverage on the championships found online [25][26][27][28][29] Alvaldi (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable sports tournament, and per the sources found by Alvaldi. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems divdied between Keep and Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Continental, age-group, gender-specific tournaments involving teams representing nations are notable as evidenced by finding of sources. It does seem that WP:BEFORE was done, but before the actual tournament ended; I would've suggested for AFDs for events such as this to be done after the fact, as it's difficult to WP:CRYSTAL coverage and WP:RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Disagree with the notability issues since its a continental championship. The page seems to also be cited with official websites and the numbers are accurate. The maximum action that should be taken is probably adding a 'more citations needed' template. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 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. Sandstein 08:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCHURCH due to a complete lack of significant independent reliable sources. ––FormalDude talk 04:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. ––FormalDude talk 05:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a denomination of 9 congregations, not a mere local church, but I still doubt it is large enough for us to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingirion I understand that the denomination is really small. However, I have added more independent sources that cover information about her. Even small, there are independent sources telling its history and doctrine. Therefore, it meets the notoriety criterion. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is a very poorly written article, and it took a bit of work to confirm whether this denomination was Brazilian or American: User:Daniel Silva Mendanha also wrote the Portuguese article. But no, it appears they did not "adopt the name 'Igreja Presbiteriana Bíblica - Presbytery of Faith'". St Anselm (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm Indeed, there was a translation error. I first created the article in Portuguese and then the one in English and there was a translation error. I have already corrected the information. Thanks for the collaboration. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added another independent source, which talks about the denomination's history and doctrine. As much as it is a small denomination, it has its history and doctrine informed by independent sources, in a way that meets the criteria of notoriety.--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any sources that meet either NORG or GNG, which is the requirement of NCHURCH. Most of the sources are clearly not independent or not reliable. Several appear to be self-published. ––FormalDude talk 01:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude Hi! There are several sources unrelated to the denomination in question. The second source (https://web.archive.org/web/20141111183209/http://www.tateville.com/churches.html) is not from the church and is not controlled by the church, but tells about its history. The third source is a book, which talks about a doctrine of denomination (https://web.archive.org/web/20220606141519/http://library.mibckerala.org/lms_frame/eBook/Petrus%20Romanus_%20The%20Final %20Pope%20%20-%20Thomas%20Horn.pdf). The sixth source (https://web.archive.org/web/20150530005725/http://historiadaigreja.info/category/historia-da-igreja-4-sec-20-21/) is from an academic institution, from theological teaching in Brazil, which has no relationship with the denomination in question, but reports on the history of the denomination's emergence. The eighth source reports on general meetings of various denominations and is not controlled by the denomination or its members (https://blog.gajunkie.com/?p=747). Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs and other self-published sources are not reliable. That leaves only the book source, which I'm not sure is reliable either, based on all the bible quotes and unverifiable references. ––FormalDude talk 07:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The first book (3rd source) discusses Christian doctrines. It is normal to mention biblical texts. Also, the book has 746 references and more than 250 of them (I stopped counting after that, because there were too many) with links (verifiable) and the references without links are other books, which is normal for a book to do. Therefore, there is no way to mischaracterize the book as an independent source. Also, the information about the denomination present in it can be confirmed by the 11th source, another book that I added to the sources today. I also added a 3rd book (now 2nd source). The 4th source (https://web.archive.org/web/20141111183209/http://www.tateville.com/churches.html), which before the latest editions was the 2nd, is not self-published. The site is not related to the denomination or its members. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple book sources. Religious books are acceptable for religious topics as per a recent WP:RSN discussion, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. St Anselm (talk) 05:06, 10 July 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!} 04:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kola Union High School[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution, no indication of Notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Tried for notable refs in Book search, JSTOR, Newspaper archives, but found nothing to establish WP:NSCHOOL. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 14 July 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!} 03:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk (webcomic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The comic has been tagged for sources since 2007 with none forthcoming. I found none in a WP:BEFORE, nor any evidence that the comic meets any notability criteria for web content (its age alone is not a facet of notability in the absence of sources). The comic was previously kept at an AFD in 2006, when our standards were massively different.

Also bundling in the comic's creator, whose article similarly suffers from a near total lack of viable sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Websites. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was not able to find any substantial independent sources. HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both – An old one, but absolutely nothing to find on it. Unfortunate. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cullen (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR... bit parts only; no notable roles. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No major roles or awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 10 July 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!} 03:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon (webcomic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Web Cartoonist's Choice Award has been deemed insufficient for notability in multiple other AFD discussions; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applegeeks (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack (webcomic) (3rd nomination), et al. It was kept in 2007 and 2010 off this award alone, but since then, consensus has proven that the award is not notable especially in the absence of better sourcing. I was unable to find anything of substance in a WP:BEFORE, and most of what was turned up in the last two AFDs was interviews, primary, or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any substantial secondary sources. HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree that listings in one reward is not sufficient for an article. Can't find any sources either. I'm really sad none of my webcomic history books are helping me save any of these articles... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:45, 11 July 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. Determined to be WP:TOOSOON. No penalty against creating a new version of this article in a few years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

There is no guarantee that the next election will be in 2027. could be earlier, could be later. WP:TOOSOON -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The date being uncertain isn't a reason to delete – if this is the case, it should just be moved to Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election in line with standard practice (e.g. Next Indian general election. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Not sure why I didn't think of that. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced duplicate of an existing article Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election. The year is not decided yet. It is speculation for now. Venkat TL (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it isn't duplication, but the article was renamed to Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election after the discussion started. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now, Liz has moved it back. Thanks Liz. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was mistakenly moved to Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election during this AFD so it is not proper to redirect this article to a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article can be moved to Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, but I agree that it would fall under WP:Too soon. The last election happened 3 months ago, and there is no point in creating an article for an election that is expected to take place in 2027. Also there is no significant coverage of the next election. Can be revisited in 2024, if the consensus is to delete the page. Dhruv edits (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nom that there is no guarantee as to whether or not it will happen. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing for a Living[edit]

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

Found only a couple brief mentions and false positives on ProQuest, GNews, and Newspapers.com. Doesn't seem to be a notable show per WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:43, 12 July 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!} 02:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaihei Samin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty about her in French, and I've updated the article accordingly.--IdiotSavant (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (to not say keep) – Found sources → [30][31][32][33] – Nominator, seeing the current appearance of the article is not enough to nominate. Please, search for sources before doing this type of nominations.--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – If there are finally more "keep" than "draftify" votes, count mine as keep in that case.--MonFrontieres (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that she has substantial coverage, but just so you know for the future, organizations someone belongs to are not independent and so cannot count toward GNG. That would include your first and fourth sources. EDIT: actually it looks like the Tahiti Infos source also fails independence, as it was written by FTF (the Tahitian football federation). Of your sources, that leaves only the TNTV interview as independent, which, while it does contain substantial commentary by the author, is also coverage of her youth career, which has stricter requirements for meeting NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by IS. Giant Snowman 19:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also found a lot of French sources about her online. Also, she is capped internationally for Tahiti. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player and in significant club as well. The sources provided by IdiotSavant and MonFrontieres show GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I was initially going to !vote weak keep, but then I looked into the sources a bit more. The TNTV interview (which does have significant commentary outside of quotes) could partially contribute to GNG, with the caveat that it is youth coverage, meaning much tighter requirements are in place. The other TNTV interview (of her and her grandma) is purely Q&A so does not count toward GNG. The Oceania Football Confederation and Tahitian Football Federation sources are not independent so do not go towards GNG. The Tahiti Infos sources [34][35][36][37] also fail independence, as they were written by the Tahitian Football Federation (FTF). The Sports Tahiti ref only has two independent sentences on her, the rest being Q&A, so is not SIGCOV. To meet GNG, we would need at least one more source of independent, very significant coverage not from TNTV and not on her youth career. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of new improvements in the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no problem with using the continental federation OFC as a source and evidence of notability. If someone had a lengthy article in UEFA, AFC or CONCACAF, my stance would be the same. With TNTV also showing SIGCOV, I believe that this meets WP:GNG, which is not meant to be this super high bar. I fully support deleting all articles which would be impossible to expand beyond a simple stats stub but we have decent sources to build a reasonable article from here and it doesn't violate WP:NOT so we should keep it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jarrett[edit]

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

Tagged for possible WP:NMUSIC failure since 2010 and lack of references since 2011. No significant third-party coverage. —{Canuck lehead} 01:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. —{Canuck lehead} 01:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find any sources either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High stakes backgammon[edit]

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

Article about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they purportedly existed, and instead must be shown to pass WP:GNG on media coverage to establish their significance (e.g. noteworthy awards, critical analysis, etc.) -- but this is completely unsourced, and has been tagged as such since 2009 without ever having any new sources added. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found a couple passing mentions to prove it's not a hoax, but nothing constituting significant coverage. How did this article go so long without even being properly capitalized? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Europe. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found IMDB and trivial mentions on Google, but no RS meeting GNG, the article also lacks refs at all. VickKiang (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, it looks like a hoax, based on the improper title and the "article" itself. I also found IMDb and trivial mentions, but those are nowhere near enough for notability. Can't believe this has managed to stay here since 2006. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maîmouna Camara[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triviatown[edit]

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

A film that does not appear to pass WP:NFILM. Its only claim to notability is winning a few non-notable awards. None of the individuals involved in its creation are notable themselves, so there are no viable redirect targets. I was unable to find a single review from a reliable source upon multiple searches, but I decided to bring it to AFD rather than PRODing it, in case someone else is able to have any better luck in locating any coverage or reviews. Rorshacma (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find much of anything, myself. A review here, but it's not from a reliable source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Rescue, response, and resilience: A critical incident review of the Orlando public safety response to the attack on the Pulse Nightclub" (PDF). Department of Justice. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2017.

[Stahl_2021-2] Stahl, Michael J. (2021). "The "God of Israel" and the Politics of Divinity in Ancient Israel". The “God of Israel” in History and Tradition. Vetus Testamentum: Supplements. Vol. 187. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 52–144. doi:10.1163/9789004447721_003. ISBN 978-90-04-44772-1.

[Smith_2017-3] Smith, Mark S. (2017). "YHWH's Original Character: Questions about an Unknown God". In Van Oorschot, Jürgen; Witten, Markus (eds.). The Origins of Yahwism. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Vol. 484. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 23–44. doi:10.1515/9783110448221-002. ISBN 978-3-11-042538-3. S2CID 187378834.

[Smith_2003-4] Smith, Mark S. (2003). "El, Yahweh, and the Original God of Israel and the Exodus". The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 133–148. doi:10.1093/019513480X.003.0008. ISBN 978-0-19-513480-3.

[Smith_2000-5] Smith, Mark S. (2000). "El". In Freedman, David Noel; Myer, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 384–386. ISBN 978-90-5356-503-2.

[Niehr_1995-6] Niehr, Herbert (1995). "The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspects". In Edelman, Diana Vikander (ed.). The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Leuven: Peeters Publishers. pp. 45–72. ISBN 978-90-5356-503-2. OCLC 33819403.

[Van_der_Toorn-7] Van der Toorn, Karel (1999). "God (I)". In Van der Toorn, Karel; Becking, Bob; Van der Horst, Pieter W. (eds.). Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd ed.). Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 352–365. doi:10.1163/2589-7802_DDDO_DDDO_Godi. ISBN 978-90-04-11119-6.

[8] Morris, Susan, ed. (2019). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage. p. 4699.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]