Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 13	July 15 >

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samarqand Restaurant[edit]

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

Only citations for article are a blog post and a review in The Independent. Restaurant seems to have closed in about 2014, based on when its official Facebook ( https://www.facebook.com/samarqandlondon ) and Twitter ( https://twitter.com/samarqandlondon ) stopped updating. I couldn't find any other media coverage of significance, only Yelp/Foursquare entries. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements and won't meet them in the future. Previous deletion discussion in 2014 decided to keep article pending improvements, which are now extremely unlikely to happen. SimLibrarian (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should have been deleted eight years ago. Rogermx (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing particularly significant or storied, as restaurants go. If it had a few more decades and a lot more sources behind it I might suggest merging to Marylebone, but there is not even enough to justify that here. BD2412 T 04:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not relevant and current, the links do not fully cover the topic --Bigneeerman (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; extremely unlikely that any restaurant that opened in 2009 and closed in 2014 would achieve notability without there being large numbers of easily-found online instances of significant coverage. valereee (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC) ETA: I added a 'further reading' section to provide two add'l sources that had been mentioned in previous AfD, but neither of them appears to represent sig cov either. valereee (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A promotional article that does not support WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think a consensus has been reached here. As is, the article violates WP:PROMO, and it seems unlikely that additional sources can be found to establish notability given that it's been closed for nearly a decade. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above promotional and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:54, 20 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 02:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lilit Martirosyan[edit]

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

Non-notable film producer. Previously deleted in 2016. – Ploni (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Armenia. Ploni (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: North-South produced by Lilit remains a well-known comedy. Not sure if there are any other valid reason(s) for deletion. The article also seems to be well sourced. Archives908 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - North-South is a separate article; notability for that subject does not create notability for this subject. There are 9 references in the article. All 9 of them are non-independent sources. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC both require sources independent of the subject, which this article does not have. - Aoidh (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I think the previous AfD was about a different person who just happened to have the same name, as the previous AfD is talking about a model, this article is about a producer/director with no mention of being a model. - Aoidh (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the previous discussion is one for a different person of the same name, I could find lots of refs for this activist, but not for the filmaker who is discussed. Most refs are not indepedent, unreliable (on YouTube), or couldn't be opened, this is maybe an RS but it's not significant, as it's more about the film than the director (who is mentioned only briefly). So WP:GNG isn't met, I couldn't see that a famous honor have been achieved, or Lilit having created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work; I couldn't see any other criteria for WP:Notability (biography) being met, so support deletion. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 04:44, 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. TigerShark (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aptean[edit]

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

Not notable. Advert, does'nt meet either WP:NCOPR nor WP:GNG Bash7oven (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep leaning towards keep; seems to have enough independent and reliable coverage --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:33, 6 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!} 22:49, 7 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!} 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article looks like advertising with no independent reliable links. Doesn`t cover the criterion WP:NCOPR.--Bigneeerman (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails WP:GNG in that there are no third-party sources that are independent of the subject that have any significant coverage of the subject. The article especially fails WP:ORGCRIT's stricter interpretation of notability. Article's sources are all primary sources, republished press releases, or are not about this article's subject. The article fails WP:NCORP outright. - Aoidh (talk) 00:13, 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. Star Mississippi 02:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phreesia[edit]

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

Advert, no WP:NCOPR nor WP:GNG Bash7oven (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- is not notable yet.WikiDidi99 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is listed. scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no independent and reliable coverage --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion even though there is an apparent consensus to Delete based on the recent, clear previous decision to "Keep" this article and the relative newness of the editors participating here so far. I'd like to see some veteran AFD folks offer their opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bash7oven, What is NCOPR? Jacona (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacona, I believe he meant WP:CORP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 14 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!} 22:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A not so glowing review in WaPo here [1] and on NPR here: [2], I think it's GNG. not the best coverage of the company. More than enough mentions in GScholar for the company, we'd have to really do a deep dive to find a piece there to use as a source. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly both the WaPo article mentioned above, this case study by HBS and this SWOT Analysis created in conjuction with Havard Business Review appear to meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:00, 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. ✗plicit 14:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of district heating systems[edit]

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

This is an example of What Wikipedia is not with no actual encyclopedic value. It is not a "List of district heating systems" but one of systems ranked on annual heat sales (2001) based on Library of Congress data. I prodded this but it was contested and a "Needs updating" tag placed. It became outdated in 2002 and is just a historical snapshot of some company sales figures. The lead actually states "(2001 data based on this article, other figures based on companies' data):" so is basically primary sourced sales figures. A 2004 link requires a signing up for a Zoho account to save to a clipboard to view which is advertising or promotional. Otr500 (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG by virtue of the lack of independent reliable sources. Yes, the article could be updated, but that doesn't fix the inherent issues with the article. This is nothing more than an article that ranks sales figures across some (and only some) companies and so is a flagrant WP:NOTDIRECTORY offender. - Aoidh (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 7 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!} 22:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of full cover and independent resources, according to WP:INDEPENDENT--Bigneeerman (talk) 13:47, 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 03:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portman Dental Care[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Portman Dental Care (2nd nomination)

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

This article is little more than an advertisement. I've deleted much of the promotional language and citations to the firm's own website. Some of what remains is cited to twitter, just about zero press. Not notable enough for inclusion. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Europe, and United Kingdom. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First AFD was listed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portman Dentalcare (thank you Nate).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real change since the original 2018 nomination; a lot of puffery about a generic dental chain, except now it's been bought by a generic equity company. None of my concerns in nom #1 were addressed in any appreciable manner, and it was much worse before the nom's attempt at cleanup. And that the article boasts of them recieivng awards with nothing to do with actual patient care is questionable (why is there something called the "COVID Response Awards"?!! They won in the category "BEST COVID-19 RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE (OVER 15M TURNOVER)" which...yeah, I'm holding back a rant here). Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I'll just add that of the eight citations remaining, two are to twitter, one to the BDCA is a generic page with no mention of Portman, the remaining are to industry publications apart from one to Sky News. There are more than 12,000 dental practices in the UK, we surely don't have individual articles for all of them. That's not encyclopedic imo. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable organisation. Keep arguments in the last AFD were weak at best, and there is still no evidence ORGCRITE is met. Given that the argument of "premature" deletion in 2018 has four years later proven false with no increase in proof of notability, I support deletion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:37, 21 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 12:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Orton[edit]

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

Has written several songs, but most of them were album tracks. Several were hit singles, but he was only a co-writer on all of them. Current sources are just chart histories for the artist and do not mention Orton's involvement at all. WP:BEFORE yielded only passing mentions of him signing with publishing companies, or directory listings verifying that he wrote these songs. Sources checked were Newspapers.com, Worldradiohistory.com, MusicRow, and Billboard. None gave even the most superficial coverage on Orton himself, to the point that I was 100% unable to even prove he's from Louisiana. For the utter lack of biographical information, I think this should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 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!} 22:15, 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 redirect to Cayuga Lake with the history under the redirect if someone wants to merge it Star Mississippi 02:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McPherson Seaplane Base[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG. Sparse coverage of this former seaplane base is mostly ROUTINE government publication lacking SIGCOV. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and New York. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect if a suitable target can be found. This seaplane port no longer exists. There are no vestiges or ruins of it and it has no FAA call sign. Other than a couple of listings in obscure documents, I have found no sources that discuss it or lend notability to it per GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cayuga Lake, which served as its runway. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's non-existent, fails N and V. Worse yet, the internet is using our WP entry about an obscure and non-existent seaplane base. It makes no sense to redirect or even merge. It's misguided false hope for seaplane pilots looking for a base to land. This is the kind of misinformation that originates from our article. That base is not a historic site, and should not be preserved just because it existed for a short time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Atsme 💬 📧 11:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it for notability and notability it does, indeed, lack! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cayuga Lake would be the best solution, since McPherson Seaplane Base is a part of the lake's history. TH1980 (talk) 23:08, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flohr[edit]

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

Non-WP:GNG-notable artist. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Visual arts, and California. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Flies a bit too under the radar for notability. San Diego Magazine, repeated coverage in Art Business News, but doesn't seem to be any significant critical or popular engagement. At best too soon. Jahaza (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This promotional article is on a non-notable commercial production painter. There is no indication in the article sourcing and what I found in a BEFORE search to indicate they do not meet WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. It seems they had a work in one group show at a notable venue (the DeYoung). I could find no notable exhibitions, collections or reviews, no art historical critical analysis. Netherzone (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the group show at the DeYoung was his student work. The only citations for that show were from oft repeated promotion material on various sale sties. I've deleted a lot of the promotional lint from the article, including excessive general "external links" long out of date. It looks like the last post he made to his blogspot was 2010. I didn't remove the link, but... WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:25, 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 12:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shonali Sabherwal[edit]

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

To begin with, the article was created by a sockmaster who was involved in paid editing. There haven't been many substantial edits to the article except for removing promotional stuff. Only two editors added content, one was blocked for socking, and paid editing, while other is the subject of this bio itself.

With a thorough WP:BEFORE, I could not find any coverage in reliable sources. There are a few interviews, and few PR/puff pieces. Most of the times, the coverage comes from mentions (not significant coverage) because the source discusses "looks", and diet about celebrity(s). But the subject doesnt get significant coverage.

In all, subject fails general notability criteria as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and India. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:14, 7 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!} 20:41, 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 no consensus with respect to keep or merge with the book, but that is not a discussion that requires continuation of the AfD as a deletion of the content is not a possible outcome of this conversation. Star Mississippi 03:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shada Mustafa[edit]

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

This seems like WP:TOOSOON to pass WP:NAUTHOR to me. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC - my searches online and at the WP library have not found much more than what appears in the article, and one novel shortlisted for the Sheikh Zayed Book Award seems WP:TOOSOON at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Searching in Arabic brings up book reviews. I need to do more work on this, but already sources added suggest notability. CT55555 (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching for sources in Arabic indicates notability and a pass at WP:AUTHOR. I note 2 caveats: 1, I am not skilled in assessing sources in Arabic, relying on machine translation, they seem independent and reliable, adding in good faith. 2, I know others interpret WP:AUTHOR's "significant or well-known" detail differently from me whereby I think all these sources illustrate it is well known, but I know that sensible people may disagree. Caveats aside, I think there are multiple independent reviews of her book and there is therefore notable. CT55555 (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at the Ruth Joffre AfD and the discussion you started at the AfD Talk page (WP:AUTHOR is two decent book reviews enough?) seems relevant to consider with regard to interpretation of WP:NAUTHOR. One of the sources added to this article is an interview from the Al-Modon newspaper, which is managed by iHorizons. This looks helpful for developing a book article, but does not provide a lot of independent and secondary support for notability per WP:BASIC or WP:NBOOK. Beccaynr (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the book is currently more likely to be notable than the author in this case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "is two book reviews enough" concluded that both your interpretation and mine are valid; RJ was kept. I have considered both in reaching my "keep" conclusion. I see that we tend to see these things differently and I think that's OK, we can differ on how we see notability here. I think my stance is reasonable. I don't think it is in contrast with guidelines, although recent conversations at ArbCom have highlighted WP:5P5 to me and I'm also remaining mindful of that in AfD nowadays. CT55555 (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of the AfD Talk discussion, due to the nuances explored and the variety of circumstances discussed. The discussion also emphasized how significant and well-known is a separate aspect of notability to be considered in addition to reviews. I have followed up with the closing admin on the close of the Ruth Joffre AfD because promotion appears to be all that remains when there is insufficient independent and reliable secondary support for notability. I do not think keeping promotional content is supported by WP:IAR, because per WP:NOT policy, this does not improve the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nuance about what makes authors notable. Yes just tow books is probably not enough. But beyond that there is not consensus about what "significant" means, and I think I've made a fair argument about how I see the significance here. I think there is a difference between saying IAR means include promo material (I did not and do not support that) and me pointing out a pillar that notes there are no firm rules. CT55555 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first prong of WP:NAUTHOR#3, i.e. that the work is significant and well-known, requires more than multiple reviews. Per this guideline, reviews are in addition to indications of significance. For example, this 2021 article in An-Nahar (Google Translation) about the book being shortlisted seems to help support the significance of the award, although being shortlisted is not enough to support WP:NBOOK notability. There also seems to be a WP:BLP1E issue because 1) reliable sources only cover Mustafa for the one event related to her book, 2) she appears to otherwise remain, and likely to remain, a low-profile individual (unless, e.g. she writes another book that is reviewed by multiple independent and reliable sources, nominated for a major award, etc), 3) we do not yet seem to have support for the significance of the book (e.g. persistent coverage in reliable sources) or substantial coverage of her. Writing an article about the book may be supported by the reviews, depending on the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think BLP1E applies:
1. This is her first solo book, I see no reason to assume she will not write more, I cannot see why a twice published younger author would be assumed to revert to being a low profile individual when she, this year, has been doing multiple media interviews about her writing
2. She is also a contributor to another book. She is mentioned as an author (see this section) WP:NOTBLP1E is a helpful essay that breaks down BLP1E criteria and points out that even the absolute more brief mention elsewhere makes BLP1E invalid as a justification to delete. The essay actually gives an example almost exactly like this one Subjects who have created many works, of which the majority have little attention and one has a sizable (or cult) fandom and gives a helpful piece of context BLP1E is more a courtesy we grant potentially unwilling article subjects than anything.
I consider a book making multiple news outlets, including ones outside her home country and different from the country is was published in, I consider that being nominated for a prize in a different country, I think that having it translated into a different language all to indicate that it is significant and well known. CT55555 (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 is the main reason my original nomination said WP:TOOSOON as WP:CRYSTAL. To me the reviews give weight to the book being notable, but I don't count just an award nomination for counting for much to be honest. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you see it as a positive contribution to the encyclopedia if I created an article about her book? Then I could maybe persuade you to vote redirect? CT55555 (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I would be very happy for a redirect and some merging as WP:ATD. I also have no prejudice about a full Shada Mustafa article being recreated in the future either if this one ends up being deleted, if it's shown she becomes notable in the future. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. On it Draft:Things I Left Behind CT55555 (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things I Left Behind exists CT55555 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Arabic sources added by CT55555 along with the subject being shortlisted for last year's the Sheikh Zayed Book Award for Literature indicate the subject meets notability standards.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SouthernNights, which sources added support notability for the subject? In the Things I Left Behind article, the Critical reception section currently only includes noting the shortlisting for the award, but does not identify any reviews, and therefore may not have WP:NBOOK notability supported. While the book was translated into English, no reviews for the English version have been identified during this discussion. Without sufficient independent and reliable secondary sources, both articles will be primarily based on non-independent and primary sources and WP:PROMOTION. Beccaynr (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabic sources cover and critique her work significantly, I was just cautious about what I added in the context of the book being to some degree autobiographical, also dealing with very complex issues of sexuality and Palestinian family values, Arab-Israeli conflict, some possibly negative critique, so I erred on the side of brevity and not adding anything if there was potential to translate incorrectly. The significant independent coverage exists. CT55555 (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555, which sources are you referring to? It would be helpful to provide links to help determine whether these are questionable sources. The hesitation to include what may not be WP:BESTSOURCES to avoid bias may indicate that these sources do not support notability. If these are the only sources that support notability but are not suitable for inclusion in the article, what is the basis for notability? If you can provide links, that would be appreciated - I am trying to help find a way to support this article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.independentarabia.com/node/118626/%D8%AB%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A9/%D8%B4%D8%B0%D9%89-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B7%D9%81%D9%89-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%B4-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D9%82%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7

https://www.almodon.com/culture/2022/6/13/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%B4%D8%B0%D9%89-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B7%D9%81%D9%89-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%AA-%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%81%D9%87%D8%A7 CT55555 (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews and coverage in English are not required to prove notability. The Arabic coverage of the subject plus the Arabic reviews in the references section are what convinced me this subject meets notability. Others are free to click on this links as I did and use Google Translate to see the coverage and reviews.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SouthernNights, I have clicked and translated links and conducted my own searches, and discussed some of the results here. My reference to the lack of English reviews is in part a response to the comment above that suggests the English translation helps indicate the book is significant and well-known. Due to the risk of WP:PROMOTION, I am asking keep !voters to more specifically identify which sources provide independent and reliable secondary support for notability, for the author and/or the book, instead of WP:VAGUEWAVES or WP:FINDSOURCESFORME. I would be happy to consider changing my !vote but have not found a basis for this yet. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her book is clearly notable, so we should have an article about the book. Whether it's titled Shada Mustafa or Things I Left Behind is a merge/move issue that can be discussed on a talk page. I think it's preferable to have author pages because it's more obvious that the page is a BLP. Redirecting authors to book risks creating hidden BLP coatracks which won't see as much scrutiny from the community. pburka (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a source assessment table for sources in this article, and the source I noted above:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
al-Tawil, Katia. "A Novel as Smooth as Silk" Banipal	Mustafa is a contributor to Banipal, and Banipal is the publisher of the English translation		In-depth book review	✘ No
The International Prize for Arabic Fiction, Excerpts from Shortlist 2021			passing mention in a profile for translator Nancy Roberts at p.68	✘ No
شذى مصطفى لـ"المدن": العذرية معيار يتشاركه التقليديون والتقدميون Al-Modon newspaper, 2020, Google translated title: "Shatha Mustafa to Al-Modon: Virginity is a standard shared by traditionalists and progressives"		managed by iHorizons	~ This is an interview. It begins with a blurb about her background, education, and current residence, and her description of her book. The depth of the questions from the interview appears to add some secondary support for WP:BASIC notability.	~ Partial
Banipal (UK) Magazine of Modern Arab Literature - Contributors - Shada Mustafa, Banipal	contributor profile		four-sentence contributor profile	✘ No
Lund School of Architecture Spring Exhibition 2017	listed as a student at p. 15 and p. 16		listed; at p. 16, "The students work prototypes in different materials."	✘ No
الفلسطينية شذى مصطفى تروي ما تركت خلفها, Al-Modon newspaper, 2022, Google translated title: "A Palestinian woman, Shatha Mustafa, tells what she left behind"			The only secondary commentary is at the beginning of the article (translated): "The first novel by the Palestinian writer, Shatha Mustafa, "I Didn't Leave Behind Me", published in Arabic by "Nawfal" and in English by "Banibal", wants to talk about everything, as if it were an opportunity to reveal what is inside the self that has lived through two difficult experiences, the first between divorced parents." The rest summarizes the novel.	✔ Yes
شذى مصطفى: لماذا علينا أن نحمل تلك الحقيبة؟ Al Akhbar, 2020, Google translated title: "Shatha Mustafa: Why do we have to carry that bag?"	?	?	in-depth book review	? Unknown
شذى مصطفى تناقش الهوية الفلسطينية المنقسمة سرديا, The Independent (Arabia), 2020, Google translated title "Shatha Mustafa discusses a narratively divided Palestinian identity"			discussion of themes in the novel	✔ Yes
Reworlding Ramallah, Disarming Design from Palestine	?		Announcement of a 2019 book launch event; Mustafa is listed as one of eight authors in a Palestinian sci-fi short story collection	✘ No
"ما تركتُ خلفي" لشذى مصطفى على القائمة القصيرة لجائزة الشيخ الزايد: السردية تُفكك الغياب, An-Nahar 2021, Google translated title: "Shatha Mostafa's "What I Left Behind" was shortlisted for the Sheikh Zayed Prize: Narrative Dismantles Absence"			~ Announces shortlist for Sheikh Zayed Book Award, Young Author division, includes brief commentary from writer and critic Salman Zain Al-Din, briefly describes and comments on the structure of the novel, then includes extensive quotes from Mustafa.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I think based on this source assessment table, WP:NBOOK notability can be supported, and the limited amount of available biographical information does not seem to create a major risk of a WP:COATRACK in an article about the book. There does not appear to be support for both articles to be kept, and while it still seems WP:TOOSOON for WP:AUTHOR notability, the English translation was published in May 2022, and there may be additional reviews and further opportunities to show the book is significant and well-known in the near future. I have struck my !vote above and currently favor a redirect, but also encourage further discussion about the need to include references to independent and reliable sources that provide commentary about the book. Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nom, I am now in favour of a redirect to Things I Left Behind as per Beccaynr's analysis, supported by sources added by CT55555. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Things I Left Behind. CT55555 has now clarified an objection related to the two sources marked green in the GNG column above (which appear to be the best support for WP:BOOK notability found at this time), and I think the inclusion of information from these sources in the Critical reception section can be further discussed at the article Talk page and/or with interested Wikiprojects. Beccaynr (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with keeping the book article but deleting the author's article. Consensus is this discussion appears to be toward keeping the author's article and any discussion about the book's notability is separate from this AfD. Personally, deleting this article and merging some of the info into the book's article appears to me to be a stealth deletion and not something I would support. Again, the sources have proved notability for this article's subject.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I think everyone is acting in good faith and I have enormous respect for the people I'm disagreeing with, I think we're getting too caught up in the details and missing the bigger picture, which, as I see it is: is the encyclopedia better or worse for having an article on the author. I think better. She's written one book, but published before in a small way, contributing a short story. There are valid reasons stated above to have a biographical article - they get more scrutiny. This isn't a hill I want to die on. A redirect to the book is not a catastrophe, but keeping both does seem better. Peace. CT55555 (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add to what CT55555 said -- everyone here is absolutely acting in good faith even if we're not in agreement. I also personally think Wikipedia is a better place with this author's article in it. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect preserves the history of the author article, so I disagree it is a 'stealth deletion'. I also think the sources show per the guidelines that WP:AUTHOR notability is not supported at this time, but WP:NBOOK notability appears to be, and the book article can be further developed. For example, the source relied on to say this novel is "autobiographical" appears to need further review to determine whether this is the best and most BLP-compliant way to summarize the analysis of the themes in the book, but that can be further discussed on the article Talk page. We do not appear to have much biographical information about Mustafa, nor strong support for WP:BASIC notability independent from her book. Because a redirect is an option at AfD, and the significance of the book is part of the WP:NAUTHOR guideline, I think discussion about the notability of the book is relevant to this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note on it being autobiographical, I only added that because the author said something simialr in an interview. Machine translation quote: "What I Left Behind is a fictional autobiography that blends reality and fiction" from here Also noting the exact same university and cities appearing in book reviews and biographical information about her probably help my comfort with that "autobiographical" statement. CT55555 (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be further discussed at the article Talk page, but it seems potentially confusing or misleading to the reader in the context of the broader discussion of the book. The "autobiography" statement I refer to in the article is currently attributed to The Independent (Arabia), not Al-Modon [3]. There seems to be an issue when Mustafa says it is a fictional autobiography and a source seems to be characterized as contradicting her about what she wrote. My concern is with the apparent implication that everything else in the book beyond the universities and cities is an autobiography. It seems better to remove or enhance what seems to be an unclear summary and add the source discussing the themes in the book to the Critical reception section. Beccaynr (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss on the talk page, and I'm supportive of any edits you want to make. CT55555 (talk) 16:47, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four Rivers Conference (Missouri)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination: soft deleted following an AfD which received no participation other than the nominator, requested for restoration here several weeks ago, but no improvements have been made to the article since then. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and Missouri. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 7 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!} 20:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. We don't usually post articles for high school sports events, and it doesn't seem to have the following that e.g. high school American football has. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 20 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 redirect to Quaker Oats Company. TigerShark (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Bar[edit]

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

Deprodded with the rationale that it is "pretty notable in the UK", I was unable to find any reliable sources showing this. Fails notability guidelines; sole source on the article is a WP:USERGENERATED review, see archive link here. Waxworker (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm finding no sources at all. This seems to be simply a brand name of a granola bar. valereee (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is indeed a "brand name of a granola bar". But then, a Mars bar is just a brand name of a chocolate bar! Certainly pretty notable in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to relevant section of Quaker Oats Company article. Per WP:NPRODUCT. Or failing that, delete. Unlike the similar but separate AfD on a related topic, a WP:BEFORE exercise here doesn't return many/any sources of which the subject is a primary topic. All I can find are sources like this where the subject is mentioned alongside other competing products. Or this, where the product seems to be mentioned, but in the context of something else. The existing "reference" in the article is otherwise about as unreliable as it gets. Not seeing justification for a standalone article. Guliolopez (talk) 12:20, 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!} 20:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not able to find relevant coverage, though as an unrelated aside (I am unable to verify this from actual reliable sources rather than SPS, and it would have little bearing on notability regardless if not part of significant coverage) the brand seems to have been licenced and subsequently discontinued at some point when the licensee was sold. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:57, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Karr[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP who fails WP:GNG, created by a promotional SPA who edited solely on this topic. All of his films either do not have articles or are at AfD for the same reason. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is unsourced and has some promotional overtones, and I have been unable to find any sourcing that would bolster passage of WP:GNG even on searches of ProQuest and Newspapers.com. Bearcat (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not reliable, and cannot be used as a source, so this article has no acceptable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:58, 20 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Bongiovi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Known for being Millie Bobby Brown’s boyfriend and Jon Bon Jovi‘s son, not independently notable LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --FMSky (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to meeting our inclusion criteria for those involved in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 20 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. Star Mississippi 03:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public commercial assets[edit]

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

Essay, previous deleted as uncited, now back with tangential citations, none of which verify the phrase claimed as the title. The one assertion that defines the phrase (WP:DICDEF?) is uncited. So same old stuff, just a few random citations added. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per rationale provided by nominator. I failed to find suitable coverage of the term in a BEFORE-style search. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, keep. I don't know why other people aren't finding stuff, because GBooks and GScholar give me decent references. It appears to be a pretty new term but when it's used by the IMF and World Bank, it would appear to be sticking, and there seems to be something of substance to be said about it. Mangoe (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 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 redirect to List of Dilbert characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wally (Dilbert)[edit]

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

No reliable references found discussing this character in any significant detail independent of his source, seeming to support the conclusion that he is not culturally relevant, and not a notable subject separate from the comic strip of his origin. All sources currently featured on this page are primary sources (e.g., the official Dilbert comic and its website) and from my search, I doubt there are more sources to find beyond trivial mentions and listicles. I therefore propose redirecting and merging any information of interest to List of Dilbert characters. Joyce-stick (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they (supporting characters from the same comic strip) also appear to lack significant coverage from secondary sources:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see comments below. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC) ~~Keep.~~ I'm not a fan of bundled nominations. I came here expecting to vote delete, but all four subjects get far more results in Wikipedia library searches than I expected, although undoubtedly many of them are trivial and passing mentions that would not contribute to GNG. "Dogbert" returns over 1,600 results, including:[reply]

Beresford DR. The need for accounting standards: wisdom from the world of Dogbert. The CPA Journal. 1998;v68(n1)
Lyttle, Jim. Journal of General Psychology. The Effectiveness of Humor in Persuasion: The Case of Business Ethics Training. 00221309, Apr2001, Vol. 128, Issue 2; DOI: 10.1080/00221300109598908
Both Everyman and Other: "Dilbert" as an Exemplar of Newspaper Comics' Simultaneous Identification and Distance. By: Davis, Julie A., International Journal of Comic Art, 15316793, Fall 2009, Vol. 11, Issue 2

which are three instances that look like they probably contribute to the subject meeting GNG. My keep is based on a skim of what look like the most relevant search results. Please ping me if evidence that might change my mind is uncovered. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was able to find copies of the first two of your sources, @BennyOnTheLoose: (the Beresford source, and the Lyttle source), and while these sources may be of interest in showing the relevance of Dilbert the comic strip in general, I do not believe that these sources are significant coverage of Dogbert, the character. Reading these sources, we find firstly that the Beresford source mentions Dogbert most significantly in the following passage:

If you are a regular reader of Dilbert, you may recall a fairly recent strip where Dogbert, Dilbert's faithful canine companion, was setting up his own mutual fund. Actually, Dogbert was really just stealing investors' money under the guise of an investment vehicle.
Dilbert asked Dogbert whether investors wouldn't become suspicious when Dogbert reported his operating results, which would simply show Dogbert raking off all the cash for his personal benefit. Dogbert replied, "of course not" since he would show that his results were comparable to returns earned by the S&P 500 assuming that an unscrupulous dog managed those companies.
That entertaining example helps explain why our society has developed so many standard measures of performance, whether they are for baseball batting averages, mutual fund returns, or financial reporting. If everyone were allowed to determine his or her own measures like Dogbert, we would have chaos. Of course, some would argue that standards generally are a good idea, but in certain circumstances standards can produce more harm than benefit.

The Beresford source makes no meaningful commentary on Dogbert himself in this passage, but rather is using a dialogue exchange from the strip that happens to involve him to illustrate a larger, generally unrelated point about accounting standards and economic issues. The source hardly mentions Dogbert after that point, instead veering off to discuss the author's opinion that there is a need for "good accounting standards" in the political context of the time (specifically within the US). As the source is not truly about Dogbert, but simply coincidentally features an example from the strip involving him in the lead to grab the reader's attention, it does not signify in any way that Dogbert is culturally relevant except perhaps to accountants and economists who prefer to explain their position by referencing Dilbert strips.

The Lyttle source, meanwhile, is a study on the ostensible effectiveness of cartoons as a viable persuasion tactic, using Dilbert the strip as an example, and also makes no significant or meaningful commentary on Dogbert, the character. He is mentioned passingly in the context of the study several times in this sort of a manner:

Therefore, I modified versions of the study materials by introducing or removing cartoon characters (Dilbert and Dogbert) and their wisecracks. Since Dilbert cartoons make fun of management (Johnson, 1997), any use of these cartoons by management should probably be considered self-effacing. Thus, I predicted that the use of...

Dogbert is never a significant topic of interest when discussing the results of the study, and while commentary is made on the author's style of humor within the strip, it is not specifically about Dogbert and is only generally applicable to the strip as a whole.

I cannot personally verify the third source (the Davis one from the International Journal of Comic Art), as it appears to be a print-only source, but judging by the title and what I have seen from these two similarly named sources, I highly doubt it qualifies as significant coverage of Dogbert. I don't think any of the other three nominated characters would prove distinct in this regard. Joyce-stick (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Joyce-stick. I'll have a deeper look at some of the search results shortly, but your commentaries on those two seem persuasive. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Davis article has round 120 words about Dogbert on p.183, and about 65 on p.187, together with a couple of further paragraphs discussing Dilbert and Dogbert’s lack of a mouth (pp.187-188), and about 440 words on the Pointy-haired Boss (pp.188-189). It might be one source contributing to GNG for those two, but most of the results are (as anticipated) passing mentions. There are quite a few reviews of Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook, but the ones I saw don't discuss the characters in depth. Changing my vote to delete, accordingly, but still open to having my mind changed. Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to User:wallyfromdilbert, who may have an opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Dilbert characters. No evidence of stand-alone notability, all we have is refs to primary sources or plot summaries, usually in passing. I used to love this comic strip, still do, but this is WP:FANCRUFT, not encyclopedic material. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, further WP:BEFORE search regarding Dilbert, the character himself (who I presumed was probably notable given his obvious importance within the comic strip as the main character) yielded similar results. Dilbert's Wikipedia page shares similar problems with all four previously nominated articles, and no reliable sources were found as evidence of standalone notability. The single non-primary source on the page, an interview with the author Scott Adams (which is mislabeled as having come from the New York Times, it seems to in fact be a WP:SPS) is not sufficient in this regard. As such I feel it appropriate to nominate him as well, and have appropriately adjusted this discussion page. Joyce-stick (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joyce-stick I'd ask you to reverse this, since other folks, including me, have commented without realizing you've made the change and our votes and comments do not apply to that page. I'd be happy to participate in a dedicated AfD for that character, but it's too late to bundle him here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I will wait for the outcome of this AfD before considering starting another on that page. For now, I'll revert my edits nominating the Dilbert character. My apologies as I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia and wasn't aware this would pose a problem. Joyce-stick (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of stand-alone notability and missing proper sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see Delete and Redirect but I was wondering if there was support for the nominator's option of Merging the content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to List of Dilbert characters. All of the nominated articles have the same issues - there are no sources indicating that they are independently notable, and none of them have any content worth merging, as it is all just overly detailed plot information sourced entirely to the comic strip itself. As all of these characters already have sufficiently detailed descriptions in the main character list, a simple Redirect is sufficient for all of them. Rorshacma (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Dilbert characters per nominator and Rorshacma. As none of the characters are independently notable, a redirect for all will suffice. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of the characters are independently notable. Does not meet WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 14:33, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Wu (investor)[edit]

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

run of the mill executive with no indepth coverage to establish notability Slywriter (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Cryptocurrency. Slywriter (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, although his company Ava Labs might. If the company can be found to be notable, it would be appropriate to redirect this page to it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability Kazanstyle (talk) 09:51, 20 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Min Tun[edit]

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

Article makes a claim to notability (playing for Myanmar and Zwegapin) which allows this to escape a PROD. The article is unacceptably cited to two Facebook posts and nothing else. Searching in Burmese script yields absolutely nothing and searches in English are no better. Google News has nothing. DDG led me to nothing more than SofaScore which is a completely basic stats page. No evidence of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No news coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Samanthany (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet GNG. Facebook should not be used as a source period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 20 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phyo Paing Soe[edit]

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

Could not find any significant coverage when searching in Burmese script or the English transliteration of the name. Google News has the one trivial mention. Nothing found in DDG. Article has him down in the category "Myanmar international footballers" but can't find evidence of a cap and, even if this were correct, it doesn't guarantee an article as WP:NFOOTBALL was deprecated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No news coverage. fails WP:GNG.Samanthany (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:14, 21 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Agathangelou[edit]

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

His name is "Μιχάλης Αγαθαγγέλου". I can find him on Soccerway but there is very little else about this person. Google News only yields brief coverage of a youth footballer of the same name. I tried a Greek language search but failed to get anything better than a bunch of irrelevant hits and some basic stats sites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No news coverage. fails WP:GNG. Samanthany (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not even remotely close here to having enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 20 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Patsiavouras[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG according to my searches. Article is currently a stats stub cited only to Soccerway. Google News has no significant coverage of Patsiavouras at all. I also conducted this Greek language search. While there are a few articles with his name in the title, upon closer inspection, none of these are any good as they are just regurgitations of basic press releases from clubs that he played for. See Sports Up and Avena for two examples of trivial coverage which don't meet requirements. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No news coverage. fails WP:GNG.Samanthany (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing here is no where near meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 20 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chairs of the Psychonomic Society[edit]

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

Why? List without a purpose. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NLIST. No independent sources discussing in-depth the chairs of the psychonomic society. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Psychology. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason for this to exist. If it were shorter, we could merge it back into the main page on the Psychonomic Society itself, but I don't think it would really add much to that article either. PianoDan (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Femke (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete haha, non notable list of non notable people. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 07:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:PianoDan above. I've added a single sentence to the main article's history section about the two chairs who are notable enough for articles: [4]. That oughta do it for now, and further notable chairs can be added to the end of that sentence. Storchy (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It definitely fails the first two selection criteria. The third criteria IMO also is failed: it needs Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington, but in this case, there's a single non-indepedent ref, I don't see any value for this for navigation. So I think delete. VickKiang (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An inconsequential list of no interest to anybody other than those on the list. There is more general interest in the Upper Tocumwal Ladies Auxiliary knitting circle. Probably know more about psychology too.--Sanjam da prdnem na tebe (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RsjaffeAgreewith delete,, I don't think this meets GNG. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:52, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bander Al-Bishi[edit]

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

Yet another stats stub created because the footballer played in one game. A Google News search in Arabic yields irrelevant results and one Goal.com article which only contains one sentence about him, simply stating that he played in one game. I could find no relevant coverage in an Arabic language search. No evidence of passing WP:GNG despite the weak passing of the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough news coverage. fails WP:GNG.Samanthany (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to end the presence of stat pages masquerading as articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 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. TigerShark (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq national under-17 football team results[edit]

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

Historical results of the under-17 team are hardly verifiable compared to results of senior national teams. Considering the (relative) lack of significant coverage, both for the scope of the list and its entries, this seems to fail WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed). ComplexRational (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iraq. ComplexRational (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent coverage. Also as per strong consensus at the Bhutan AfD and Philippines AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where this discussion is coming from. However, all the official tournaments like the AFC U17 Asian Cup or U17 World Cup are documented and verifiable. See: https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/u17worldcup/brazil2019 or https://www.the-afc.com/en/national/afc_u17_asian_cup.html. So I dont fully agree with the argument that it's not verifiable.

Suren01 (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official tournaments are another matter: there is evidently enough coverage of each specific tournament (as an event) to ascertain their notability, and so each edition has its own article. However, the comprehensive set of matches of the Iraqi U17 team, which as outlined here and in the previous AfDs (thanks for the links, Spiderone), lacks significant coverage and fails NLIST/NOTSTATS. ComplexRational (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons explained by ComplexRational above. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Iraq national under-17 football team. Giant Snowman 13:58, 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. ✗plicit 13:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prithvi Singh Mehta[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. In the two sources provided, he is only briefly mentioned in the first, and does not show up at all in the second (which, in any case, is a book of correspondences). Elsewhere I've only been able to find passing mentions. Ploni (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and India. Ploni (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Being the author of one academic book is not enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator Kazanstyle (talk) 10:01, 20 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 redirect to Himachal Football League. ✗plicit 13:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shimla FC[edit]

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

This is only a local football club. Main coverage is from the club's website itself. Sullyboywiki (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Himachal Football League] as possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above as plausible search term. The club are fairly new, so there is little coverage of them. However, as time goes on, this will potentially change. For now though, there isn’t enough to justify an article, so in my opinion a redirect is the best route for now. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:07, 21 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 redirect to Allscripts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DbMotion[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in RS according to WP:NCORP Bash7oven (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Pennsylvania. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allscripts who acquired them in 2013. None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allscripts per above.Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG for standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:08, 20 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. Star Mississippi 02:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health Data Insight[edit]

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

Lack of reliable independent media coverage WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH Bash7oven (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An accusation of lack of sources often means that the individual has not been perhaps looking in the right place. It's not a cast-iron accusation.

The organisation performs an important function for the NHS. I think you need to look more at that. GCHQ I would guess has 'few reliable sources' too, wouldn't you? DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched extensively, in Google Books, Wikipedia Library, ProQuest and I did find passing mentions of their studies and them in academic conflict of interest statements, but I found no significant coverage. I have sympathy for the comment from DinosaursLoveExistence about looking in the right places, but I'm not sure where else to look. I'll pivot to a keep in a heartbeat if anyone can show sources that prove notability. CT55555 (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its a significant contributor to the NHS. But sadly its name makes it very hard to track.Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would find this more convincing if you had any evidence of notability. CT55555 (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure about significance of NHS contributions. if yes and if proven, then should be kept. --2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The test is notability, not significance to the NHS. CT55555 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharmaforum article is quite detailed and objective. There is also some interesting coverage here[5] The dataset of England's primary care prescription data is significant in itself. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant constituent parts of the NHS are notable. The NHS is an exceedingly complex organisation and removing coverage of significant parts of it damages our coverage. Bigwig7 (talk) 23:08, 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 03:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Sampat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable; lacks significant coverage in sources Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable Proton Dental (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no hits in Gnews, only hits on the first or last name in Gnewspapers. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 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 keep. ✗plicit 13:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lucey[edit]

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

Nearly all the sources are offline, but from the headlines, they appear to be mostly notices. The only exception is the obituary in the Boston Globe, but if he were truly notable, where are the ones in other newspapers? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Boston Globe archives are available on-line and I've added the links to the article. Without regard to the obit, there was SIGCOV in the Globe. E.g. [6], [7], [8]. Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluating... some currently in the article do appear by title to be "transaction" or "notices" or "and finnaly" type articles. The sources that Cbl shows appear to be feature articles. I'm going with keep and passes WP:GNG based on additional sources provided above. It looks like he might be more remarkable for his civil service than sports... but press coverage is press coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that holds me back from taking a keep position is that the SIGCOV found so far is all from one newspaper. For a GNG pass, it would be best to have at least one other reliable, independent source with SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources provided by user:Cbl62. Clearly enough to pass WP:GNG Frank Anchor 03:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he was a co-champion, I say he is important enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfangnome (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:04, 20 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 13:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xhuljo Çolla[edit]

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

Despite a relatively easy passing of the old WP:NFOOTBALL, no evidence of WP:GNG presented in the article and nothing found when searching in Google News, DDG and ProQuest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:39, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luqman Ismail[edit]

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

Participated in part of a league match and part of a cup match a few years ago and then disappeared. A Singaporean source search uncovered only his Wikipedia article, his LinkedIn profile and some basic stats sites like Soccerpunter, none of which confer notability. Google News had no relevant hits and nor did ProQuest.

Current sources are Soccerway - a basic stats site, ESPN - a passing mention and FAS - a basic squad listing. Nothing towards WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this person might have qualified under prior NFOOTY rules which was retired, but now we need more news coverage.Samanthany (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:58, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Hussain (author)[edit]

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

No enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: expanded, notable. A dedicated chapter in a book, amongst other stuff. PamD 15:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A literature search turned up a couple of research papers that reference this author's work along with plenty of reviews of the author's work in notable outlets like The Guardian, New Statesman, and Bookseller.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:52, 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 redirect to Vinland. TigerShark (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vinland (1003)[edit]

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

unsourced - can't immediately find any other sources for it - looks entirely speculative Unbh (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Canada. Unbh (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fi.wp article (also up for deletion) has a reference to Ingstad, Helge & Ingstad, Anne Stine's book The Viking discovery of America – the excavation of a Norse settlement in L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland (ISBN 0816047162), but a Google Books search doesn't reveal anything too clear about a battle. Other than that, I did find a Government of Canada website that says c. 1000: The Vikings attacked natives, killing eight of the people they called Skraelings, probably in Labrador. The natives counter-attacked, and Thorvald, the Viking chief, was killed. A few years later, a Viking colony, possibly in Newfoundland, repulsed a Skraeling attack. The settlement was abandoned, however, a few months later. which isn't a lot to go by and I'm not sure where they sourced that from. That makes me lean delete unless better sourced materialize. As far as alternatives for deletion go, I'm not convinced there's anything to even merge here. Both Thorvald Eiriksson and Saga of the Greenlanders#Thorvald's expedition already have pretty much everything said in this article. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vinland: Not independently notable from the main article, fails WP:GNG. Merge to there. Curbon7 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure there is anything to merge that is not already in Vinland#Saga of the Greenlanders. Ljleppan (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect to Vinland. The only primary material on this is Norse sagas, which are fully covered in that article, together with the archaeological results from L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland (which tell us nothing of battles). This is another case of a WP-editor who has fallen in love with using battle-boxes, and does so inappropriately, creating wholly unnecessary articles in order to do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was a 2016 AfD for this page under its previous name, but it was speedily deleted. I suspect it was never properly filed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of L'Anse aux Meadows. The nominator had previously PRODded the page, claiming it was a hoax. pburka (talk) 19:03, 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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 15:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rev[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON - no objection to a redirect. The only mentions of this are exactly that - mentions that they will be producing it, no meaningful coverage or reviews yet. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements WP:CRYSTAL --Morpho achilles (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or WP:Draftify. Οἶδα (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Incubate. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 08:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would rather that editors would create less of such articles but now that it exists and massive coverage is already out there,[9][10][11][12] we might as well keep it. If it can't be kept, I'd opt for redirect because of the quick re-creation. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
those are all basic announcements that say nothing more about the album other than it will come out. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, User:Praxidicae, but that just isn't so. The sources I brought support a lot of information in the article, including the song list. I do agree that for any article that is released before an album or a film there is a degree of crystalballing but that isn't disallowed in all cases. I recommend AGAINST creating such articles and did so in my opinion above. I also recommend against nominations such as yours and then starting arguments with those who disagree. These kinds of articles and your kind AfDs and engagements unnecessarily stress the WP community that is better served by more work in the article space. Creators should have waited and you nominated and now started arguing about a topic that would soon have an article anyway. gidonb (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:FUTUREALBUM with sources presented by gidonb. They're reliable enough and go beyond WP:ROUTINE IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not a fan of future album articles created months before the release date, but this one is for real. Reliable music media sources have confirmed the release date, title, and track list, and therefore the article passes the WP:FUTUREALBUM guideline. Also, I'm not too familiar with the band, but if they have enthusiastic WP editors, someone will re-create the article immediately and then we will have to go through this process again and again all the way up to October, which serves no purpose except making more work for Admins. The album is happening, and despite being a bit early, this article is not hurting anything. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article looks fine to me, with plenty of reliable sources verifying the album's existence. Passes WP:FUTUREALBUM. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:31, 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. This is close, but I think delete has the strongest arguments here. That being said, there isn't anything stopping people from adding a section of Southern Episcopal Church about this Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church[edit]

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

Much like the Southern Episcopal Church that this body seems to have split from, secondary sourcing is near impossible to find. Pbritti (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tennessee. Pbritti (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: does it have an entry in Encyclopedia of American Religions? St Anselm (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: Not saying it isn't in there, but I just spent about 15 minutes searching through a digital copy and could not find it. Makes sense, as the most recent publicly available edition was published about the same time the AOSEC is thought to have gotten off the ground. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, delete then. St Anselm (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Southern Episcopal Church (ie, note as a daughter/splinter denomination), per talkpage: Talk:Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church#What is the connection with the Southern Episcopal Church? –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfish118: Discussion seems inaccurate. Sourcing in article shows that the both the SEC and AOSEC are the same body. There are two websites for the body and both show a bishop named Manning as the presiding bishop. Without additional sourcing, I think the comments in that discussion are erroneous original research due to the church using interchangeable titles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to merge them if no formal split occurred. –Zfish118^⋉talk 01:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - Merge: The Southern Episcopal Church has multiple websites, apparently remnants from different decades that were never taken down. They all, however, consistently use a logo that says "The Southern Episcopal Church of the United States" with a subtitle: "Anglican Orthodox". It seems pretty clear that this article, the "Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church" is the same body, and this article should be redirected to Southern Episcopal Church. This article describing it as a splinter group seems to be flawed WP:Original Research, as the sole source on this page says All Saints Church is the cathedral for the Southern Episcopal Church. The talkpage references the incorporation of an entity called the "Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church" with the Tennessee secretary of state, but it is rather routine for an organization to have multiple underlying corporations. Here is a list of affiliated websites, not one of which describes a schism:

https://allsaints.tripod.com/
https://www.anglicanchurch.org/
https://www.angelfire.com/biz/Southern/

I thus conclude the logical and appropriate choice is merge and redirect, removing any reference to a schism. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing on this: nothing on Google scholar, nothing on Google news, no mention in the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions. This alleged organisation clearly fails WP:GNG. Since there is nothing properly sourced, there is nothing to merge. Veverve (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge to Southern Episcopal Church in a separate section headed daughter denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was able to locate primary sources verifying that it exists. There are conflicting primary sources over whether the Southern Episcopal Church and Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church are the same organization or if the Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church split from the Southern Episcopal Church. Regardless, I could find no independent coverage of the Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church so fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion seems to be headed towards either merging or deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VersaceSpace 🌃 04:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Anglicans and the Episcopalians are basically the same church, one exists in areas of British influence, then the Revolution happened and the American branch got renamed (but follows the same religious stuff). The Orthodox Church is what the Christian churches called themselves after the split in 1066. The first two are Protestant groups, the second are older Roman Catholic/sort-of Catholic groups. It makes no sense to try combine the two groups in my mind and that's why finding sources is difficult/impossible. Sic transit gloria mundi. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, "Orthodox" is being used generically to describe this branch of the Anglican church as "faithful to the gospel". It does not describe a relationship either the Eastern Orthodox Church or oriental churches. –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Southern Episcopal Church as per WP:ATD and the reasoning above by Zfish118. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Southern Episcopal Church. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The merge has been executed, with the relevant information from this article being transferred to Southern Episcopal Church. As such, the consensus would seem to be to now turn this page into a redirect for Southern Episcopal Church. I hope the next admin to come across this closes the discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti, it was premature to merge articles before this AFD had been closed. What if the closer comes to a different conclusion? All of your work must be undone. Was it such a burden to wait for this discussion to be closed before launching a merger? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: You're welcome to review the edits made to the target article using material from this article. As this AfD was not closed, I did not turn this one into a redirect or meddle with its material but did transclude the sourced content to the target. Further, despite three relists and more than a handful of requests for comment, there was no further interaction on this AfD. This is a failure of the closers and a premature accusation on your end. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge or copy during the AfD per the fifth/last point of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD). It looks like you rewrote instead of copying – WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline) – so there is no attribution dependency that would interfere with deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the website again, it appears that "Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church" is not the name of any denomination, but rather "Anglican" and "Orthodox", being in italics, are merely descriptors: the denomination is the Southern Episcopal Church. Hence, my !vote is still delete. St Anselm (talk) 01:39, 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 delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conica AG[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Notability and third-party tag placed. Previously prodded. References are primary, company info, pr, success stories. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really, really don't understand why the PROD was declined here. As per my PROD: "Fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Coverage presented here is company releases, website, win stories." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage presented here ist not exclusively "company releases, website, win stories". Onel5969 has already noted that SRF is a good source and Rosguill has confirmed that this is a borderline case. After that even more sources have been added to the article. @Alexandermcnabb: I tried to reach out to you via your talk page to discuss the (German) sources, as you may not understand them all, but you have ignored this for over 7 days now. Your vote on the other hand arrived only 5 minutes after the nomination (including the time of writing) - as if you had been sitting on scope_creep's lap ... What happened to WP:TALKFIRST? Best Respicefinem (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can go through the sources. scope_creep^Talk 22:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Respicefinem, I missed your message on my talk - it's been busy. I'm not generally a fan of discussing AfDs on my talk - that's why we have this here space here. Let's unpick some of these sources - for instance, let's take the promotional-sounding statement in the lede, " In the field of molded plastic track surfaces for athletics, the Swiss company is considered the global market leader." That's sourced to three references. The first is the WP page of the Swiss Athletics Federation, a DAB as it happens. The second is an Italian directory with company submitted content. And the third is an article posted on the ICIS business information site derived from Conica press information and an interview with Conica’s strategic manager for sports. The next three references, it's worth noting, are all derived from Conica's own website (as, indeed, are eight of the references provided). When we add press releases, interviews with company representatives and the like, we have a total of 34 references standing up a 600 word article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." It remains my view that the Conica article does not reach that starndard. I do try not to sit on scope_creep's lap; I'm not that sort of boy. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the first 12 references:
Ref 1 Company landing page Non-rs.

Ref 2 BODENSTÄNDIGE EFFIZIENZ Fails WP:AUD and is non-rs.

Ref 3 Wikipedia ref. An illegal ref.

Ref 4 Profile Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Ref 5 Olympic flooring boosts athletes’ performance Discussion of Conica products. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Ref 6 CONICA achieves record sales and sets the course for the future Company press-release. Non-RS

Ref 7 Company page Non-RS

Ref 8 Company page Non-RS

Ref 9 New track partner for European Athletics Association Press-release

Ref 10 The Conica Group Becomes the Official Track Partner of the European Athletics Association (EA) from 2023 on! Press-release

Ref 11 Das grünste Stadion der Welt "Conica has been developing careers and innovative seamless flooring solutions based on polyurethane and epoxy resins for 40 years. " PR. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 12 Hungarian Athletics Federation and Conica AG sign cooperation agreement Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

This article is complete native advertising. It is complete in brochure like quality. There is not a single redeeming feature. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While some of this analysis may be correct, the conclusion is not.

First of all, Ref 3 is not illegal, it is simply WP:OFFLINE. Maybe you have confused the publisher's H:WIKILINK with the source citation.

I would not classify the sources you mentioned predominantly non-RS, but rather a mix of WP:RSSELF, WP:RS/SPS, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:SELFSOURCE. Even though WP:SECONDARY is preferred, WP:PRIMARY is basically not all bad for specific facts and certainly not illegal.

The main sources that speak without doubt for keeping the article are following your list, e.g.

Ref 16 Schaffhauser Nachrichten [de], Daily Newspaper

Ref 19 Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (SFR), largest electronic media house of Switzerland

Ref 20 Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (SFR), largest electronic media house of Switzerland

Ref 22 SWI, swissinfo.ch is the international unit of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC),

I, for one, would be a bit more cautious with the terms "complete" and "not a single one" if I am to judge the book by its cover (and only some of the pages) ... The article can certainly be improved, but there is no need to delete it. Thanks Respicefinem (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of that proves its notable. Using Wikipedia for a reference is illegal per policy. Your article is full of PR, Press-releases, routine coverage. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 00:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why do you falsely claim that an illegal source was used, even though I explained to you where your misinterpretation lies? Please at least try to read the arguments of the discussion participants before restating your own. Your personal opinion does not become more correct just because you keep repeating it. With this attitude, a discussion is very tiresome and doesn't lead any further. Let's wait and see how others judge this case. Thank you for your understanding! Respicefinem (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 19 and 20 are press-releases. Ref 22 is a long description of company product at a Letzigrund Stadium and fails WP:ORGIND as its an interview with the company. scope_creep^Talk 14:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about Swiss sources here – which are by definition neutral and independent. Respicefinem (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The national provenance of a source has no bearing on its neutrality or independence. That's just silly. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source added (Ref 6), so the order of points discussed here has changed a bit. Respicefinem (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its a passing mention really. scope_creep^Talk 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another source (Ref 3) added, which mixes up the order a bit further ... Best Respicefinem (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are *corporately* independent from the topic organization.

Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I believe this is the point that Respicefinem is missing above when he claims "Swiss" sources are "independent". We don't just look at the publisher, we also look closely at the *content* to determine independence.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and this topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe the point is that you (and Alexandermcnabb) are missing when Respicefinem is joking above. In Germany the phrase "as neutral as Switzerland" is a figure of speech with an ironic touch. My deepest apologies if this wasn't obvious and inappropriate. Couldn't resist ...

Ref 3 (first paragraph, second half and second paragraph) is about the company
Ref 4 is a double-page article in the print edition (WP:OFFLINE, rem WP:AGF) exclusively about the company
Ref 5 (published in the home country of Conica's largest competitor, Mondo) is about the company
Ref 21 (even in the title) is about the company
Ref 24 (second half) is about the company

Overall, this article has more and better sources than most of the SMEs here. I see no reason not to keep it and improve it further. Best Respicefinem (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Respicefinem: Your only allowed one indication of a keep or delete, so I've removed your bolding. Also that argument is in the list of arguments not give. Notability is based on coverage and each article is indepdent when it comes to Afd, so it is a redundant argument. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That the notability is not given is a repeated argument of yours, but that is still predominantly your personal evaluation of the sources. I see it differently.

@Sandstein: Perhaps you, as a native speaker of Schwiizerdütsch, can assess some of the sources a bit more closely? Thanks Respicefinem (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really interested in the topic, sorry. Sandstein 13:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm in agreement with what User:scope_creep has said above. The article's sources certainly establish the company's existence, but the threshold of WP:CORPDEPTH is considerably higher than that. User:Respicefinem's analysis is unfortunately not in line with those requirements; for example, "ref 5" is written just to promote the company and is therefore not an independent or reliable source. And so forth. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 24 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 Anthony Mary Claret. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography of Anthony Mary Claret[edit]

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

Article fails notability and sourcing. Only references to this autobiography are inline citations to biographical discussions of the subject's life. Simply Google search yielded quite a few copies for say, though! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Pbritti (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge for now given that this book has been printed in about a dozen different languages, it seems unlikely that it won't pass our criteria for number of reviews. However, tracking them down in different languages, under different titles, and largely predating the internet age is a big project.--Jahaza (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza: As part of the process pre-AfD, I searched for said reviews and came up empty-handed. If you can find these reviews, sure, I'll even retract the AfD early. But I don't think the promise of sources is enough to qualify it for retention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with merge.--Jahaza (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am extremely doubtful that the prophecies of a Spanish (?) mystic of over 1250 years ago are WP-notable, even if much translated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: that's an incredibly strange comment. This book is an autobiography, not "prophecies" and the author, Anthony Mary Claret, lived from 1807-1870, not "1250 years ago". Consider striking.--Jahaza (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: I agree with Jahaza here. A bit of an oddball comment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Translations are normally a good indication of notability, but not in this case, since this isn't commercial publishing - he's the founder of a Catholic religious order, the Claretians, who of course will translate the book because they are interested in the autobiography of their own founder. ie, it's a point for the notability of Claret, not this book in particular. I would argue otherwise if there were sources discussing the autobiography as a work of literature, or some other way than just mining it for biographical citations, but there don't seem to be. -- asilvering (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd just cut it and stick it at the bottom of Claret's article, for all the half page it is. Oaktree b (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Anthony Mary Claret, not enough coverage for a standalone article but enough for a paragraph or two on the main article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge can have a short paragraph / single sentence in the works section of Anthony Mary Claret. A bit of OR in the second paragraph, so I'd only keep the first paragraph. Femke (talk) 18:38, 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 draftify. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Singapore[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability. This is not the older, more notable organization "Catholic Church of Singapore", nor any of the other ones (Anglican, Pentecostal, Charismatic) which are also called "Church of Singapore". Sources in article are all primary, and I couldn't find other ones (but this may be due to the confusion in names), e.g. using the Chinese name in GNews gave hits[13], but these turn out to be for the Catholic Church of Singapore[14][15]. Fram (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and Singapore. Fram (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, when searcxhing using the English results, it returned the protestant church "Church of Singapore". https://www.cos.org.sg Josephsolomon92 (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.(see below) Reflist consist entirely of primary sources; unable to locate any useful secondary sources. Re: difficulty of searching, can be disambiguated by adding their location "Marine Parade" to the search term to distinguish from others of similar name (as well as its branches), but apart from primary source(s) e.g. their own website, social media, etc. Google results consist almost entirely of maps/directions services, directories/lists and the like. By page 4, results become tangential, e.g. website of an audiovisual company showcasing as part of their portfolio the work they did setting up AV systems for the church, or the church's corporate registration info from a database. Located a news report with an incidental mention, was included in a list of places visited by people who tested COVID-positive, not relevant. Fails to meet GNG. --2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are mostly primary sources, not enough sources to pass GNG. BEFORE search does not yield any articles. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any significant coverage of the church. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets mentioned in histories of global Pentecostalism, charismatic movement in Asia, and in Singapore, etc. I found some newspaper articles that were not on google. Chinese newspapers might have more. I've found (but not accessed) a biography of the Church's main founder in the National Library of Singapore. There are some more academic papers I've added to further reading, but haven't been able to access. I've also cleaned up the article a bit.--Jahaza (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More than a page on the history of the church here[16] which needs to be incorporated.--Jahaza (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: changing my recommendation from delete to give a chance for the article to be developed and properly sourced. Thanks to @Jahaza for initial efforts in this direction. Subject may be notable from an academic/historical standpoint as an important case study and pioneering example of Pentacostalism in Asia, but additional sources from other researchers (beyond just Allan Anderson) would be helpful to better establish that. 30 Dec 1978 Straits Times citation (part of larger section two local/lifestyle feature surveying lesser-known minority Christian groups) added by Jahaza also indicates it was worthy of coverage (albeit as a supplementary follow-up to an earlier feature about larger, more prominent groups). Mathews paper (listed in Further reading) and "More than a page on the history" (mentioned above) are unfortunately inaccessible to me. Prefer if assertions of fact in the article (e.g. "first independent charismatic local church") can be supported by secondary sources rather than primary ones, such as their self-published history, or the Goh biography (likely written and published by affiliated parties). Note there is a need to guard against COI editors, especially as a sockpuppeteer has been involved with the article as well as disruption this AfD. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per IP 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 after some good work by Jahaza.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - always happy to support an alternative to deletion where one appears appropriate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:58, 24 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 redirect to Derivative (finance). TigerShark (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying[edit]

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

This is hardly a separate topic for an article. The underlying of an options strategy is usually stocks, futures, or bonds, and we already have articles for all of those. All incoming links to this article should be redirected to those pages as context requires.

I've traded short options for years now, and I've never considered the subject of this article as a separate topic. TraderCharlotte (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. TraderCharlotte (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is a catastrophe for the general reader. It's only got three paragraphs: The first says explicitly "the underlying of a derivative is an asset". The second says explicitly "An underlying ... is not the asset". And there is no sourcing. I'd suggest replacing the current article with a redirect to Derivative_(finance) which mentions and defines the underlying in the second sentence of its lead. But I have no prejudice against someone recreating this article if they have sourcing and something useful to say. Wikipedia is for general readers, who need help in understanding concepts that seasoned professionals may regard as trivial. Elemimele (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Elemimele as the article makes no sense. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. There are multiple meanings of "Underlying", and I doubt that the financial meaning is the first one that comes to mind for the average reader. BD2412 T 04:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Derivative (finance). The concept of an underlying is really part of the definition of a derivative, so it it is probably best explained in that article. Alternatively, this article can be kept if anyone has ideas for expanding it with more information. As Elemimele says, the fact that this concept is trivial for a specialist does not mean that it should be deleted. Part of Wikipedia's job is to explain concepts for non-specialists. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:03, 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. No disagreement that content should be kept and consensus that merging would not be the best solution TigerShark (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor biblical places[edit]

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

We have List of biblical places, obviously encyclopedic. But any "list of minor things" first begs the question "who decides what is minor"? There are no inclusion criteria present in this list, hence WP:OR concerns arise. Second, WP:LISTN is an issue (again, List of biblical places is fine, but List of minor biblical places, much less so). Lastly, quite a lot of content here has no reference or is referenced to primary source (The Bible) itself. Do we want to keep it nonetheless, given the cultural significance of The Bible, or (my preferred solution) consider a merge to List of biblical places (of content referenced to non-primary sources), given the ORish and unclear attempt to divide biblical places into minor or not, or is there some other solution we can consider? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Bible, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose every place not "major" is "minor", but the list seems rather arbitrary and useless as it stands now. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of biblical places. I have added the inclusion criterium, which was already defined at List of biblical places: This is purely a distinction based on content within Wikipedia; what has it's own article appears in List of biblical places, all others are defined as "minor" based on that and included here. Therefore, this is not original research, just a technical WP:SPLIT within the topic "places mentioned in the Bible", and so I don't see a problem with WP:LISTN either. This split satisfies Wikipedia's common selection criterea for lists. I am personally rather passionless if this should be split (due to size?) or not. However, if there was a decision not to have separate "minor" places list, we should be very clear that WP:CSC is not later used to remove entries because they don't have a stand-alone article!

Now as for the removal of unsourced material: My preference is to keep everything, even unsourced or primary sourced content, due to the cultural significance of the Bible and the fact, that there is a large but managably finite number of places mentioned in the Bible. Also, it is very likely that there is some secondary source talking about each and every location. Aside from hundereds of years of Bible studies, just consider this Dictionnaire géographique de la Bible, which looks very comprehensive. In such a case, where material likely is verifiable, I want to emphasize that the WP:BURDEN to look for secondary sources before removing anything is on the editor considering the removal! Daranios (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the WP:BURDEN to look for secondary sources before removing anything is on the editor considering the removal! Nonsense. WP:BURDEN says quite the opposite: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: WP:BURDEN says If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. What you have quoted applies only, to quote WP:BURDEN again, if you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified. Daranios (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. That's not what "Any material lacking an inline citation" or "encouraged" means. WP:BURDEN also says All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material (emphasis in original). It may not always be popular to remove uncited material that may be verifiable (hence why editors are encouraged to add a citation, which is a far cry from being required to look for sources), but the burden—which was your assertion—is always, always on people adding material, never on people removing it. This is the case in other contexts as well—WP:ONUS states that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Wikipedia has a bias against including material, which is by design. TompaDompa (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Sure, WP:ONUS is a an altogether different matter. Has nothing to do with verifiability. I just can't be right to remove material on the grounds of verifiability even if one thinks its verifiable. That would be gaming the system. So, with regard to WP:V, do you have a considered reason to believe the material here cannot be verified despite the suggested secondary source? With regard to WP:ONUS: On which grounds would you dispute the inclusion of our material here even though it can be verified? Daranios (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no comment on this article or its contents one way or the other. I have only rebutted your incorrect assertion that editors who consider removing uncited material that may yet be verifiable are obligated to look for sources before doing so. WP:ONUS is indeed a different matter altogether and was used to illustrate my point that Wikipedia places the burden on those who add/restore material rather than those who remove it in general because there is by design a bias against including material. TompaDompa (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thanks for the input. I remain convinced my assertion is correct for a case like ours here, because it is demonstrably likely that the material here is verifiable. Also, WP:ONUS is balanced by WP:PRESERVE. But the discussion about that beyond our case here can be continued elsewhere if necessary. Daranios (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word "minor" can be removed, just state it list places that do not have their own Wikipedia article. Just have to come up with another name for it. We are an encyclopedia of knowledge people can use for their studies, not just a popular cultural site people can learn about entertainment media, Batman, sex articles, and whatnot. WP:IAR applies here. Dream Focus 17:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of biblical places. Establishing the inclusion criteria eliminated the WP:OR concerns. Merging could solve the other concerns, but that would make for a LONG list that would probably need to be divided again anyway... TNstingray (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The list of biblical places article would be a perfect place for this info as that article seems to be for as many biblical places as possible. Merging seems like the best option. I also wanna reiterate how the word minor is unclear Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. Minor is preferable to using 'notable' in a title, but that's what this essentially is, and that's itself a WP:CSC entry. However, I would challenge the notion that ANYTHING mentioned in the canonical Hebrew and New Testament scriptures is actually non-notable: so many dead tree books have been published over the centuries, almost nothing mentioned therein is non-notable... there are just things we haven't bothered to identify multiple sources for yet. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no sense in merging 90K of material into another list, and there is no sense in deleting a large quantity of disambiguating content that can obviously be cited. It is in the Bible, and there are glossaries of the Bible that attempt to define just about everything in it. BD2412 T 04:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have one list split by letters (A-P, R-Z, whatever) than a split based on unclear division into what is minor and what is not. This can be merged then split if needed without ORish divisions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction of the page defines it. "This is a list of places mentioned in the Bible, which do not have their own Wikipedia articles." That is not OR, as established in earlier conversations. TNstingray (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does, however, clearly fails WP:NLIST, since no other place outside Wikipedia would care about such a list. One general list is defendable, Wikipedia-only, much less so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an intelligible distinction. If there are sources that list all of these, and we divide the list into reasonable portions, there surely does not need to be an external source for a list focused on our internal subdivision. If, for example, there is a list of all biblical places, and we have such a list divided into A through J, K through R, and T through Z, would we need to show that there is an external source discussing only biblical places from T through Z? BD2412 T 01:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information in this list is dense enough not to be merged with List of biblical places and historically notable enough not to be deleted. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It doesn't really make much sense for there to be two lists, and "minor" is a rather weird descriptor in this case. If the main list was giant, then simply renaming/reframing this list would make sense, but it's tiny and can easily fit all of the relevant context. Reorganizing it into a table-based list would probably be best. TTN (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- These lists, however, are incomplete and constantly growing. BD2412 T 01:17, 22 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. TigerShark (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

213 (number)[edit]

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

I know we have a ton of similar articles, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Now, this article. What makes it pass WP:GNG? WP:SIGCOV is not met, and the article is just a tiny collection of trivia. Arguably, many similar articles need to be looked at. Considering existing practice, this could redirect to 210 (number), but that article doesn't mention it (some ~10s discuss the following individual numbers, ex. 264 (number) redirects to 260 (number)#264, shrug). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent: all integers up to 999 seem to have individual articles, so in my opinion WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually applies by comparison with those. See Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Specific to this page, 213 is a sufficiently small number that I have no doubt it is interesting and many other statements could be added to the article. This is a stub. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But GNG is not met, and a essay a hardly overrule this. I am sure this is WP:INTERESTING to some, but intereting =/= encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~GNG is easily met for the number 213. Much easier than most other articles on this site. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Repeating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a strong argument, either. You need to explain which sources contain a WP:SIGCOV discussion of this number. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above assertion that "All integers up to 999 seem to have individual articles" is false. In fact, they tend to peter out at around 280. I'm pretty certain that 213 shouldn't have an article...but then again, neither should most integers above 10 (maybe 20). Powers of 10 are probably an exception. There might be further exceptions for numbers that have some particular cultural significance, like 1729, but invariably, these articles just wind up as dumping grounds of both mathematical and (moreso for smaller numbers) non-mathematical trivia. But in any case, I think it would be more productive to just have a discussion about what to do with these as a whole. I'm not sure AFD is really the best place to just throw one random one of these up against the wall. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I thought all the entries in the table were individual number articles. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Caleb Stanford Friendly tip: enable the preference gadget that colors redirects green. I find it very useful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's helpful. I found Help:Link color#Redirect to accomplish this Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Non-notable, without enough refs for GNG, and doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, though most numbers up to 280 have an article, so that's also a reasonable argument, but IMO deleting is all right unless more refs are found. Also, the Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers says that Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer?, I don't think this is met, but "interesting" is subjective. VickKiang (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just found Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers, which appears to be an establisehd WP:SNG for numbers (i.e., overrides GNG). Copying the criteria here for an assessment:

Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer?

Agree 4 unrelated properties are listed. All of these seem interesting to me, except perhaps the semiprime property.

Disagree Well, the first two properties (being a product of two primes, and a semiprime) are so common, that they can't count as "interesting mathematical properties". Being a product of primes (a composite number) is even explicitly mentioned in the rules you referred as uninterested. Olaf (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Olaf: As I said, I agree about the semiprime property. But the other 3 properties listed are: (1) "213 and the other permutations of its digits are the only three-digit number whose digit sums and digit products are equal" (2) "It is a member of the quickly-growing Levine sequence" (3) "Its square, 2132 = 45369, is one of only 15 known squares that can be represented as a sum of distinct factorials." You may be counting the properties differently than me.

Also, did you check David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, Jean-Marie De Koninck's Those Fascinating Numbers, and Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number?" (see third criterion below).

Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this number have obvious cultural significance (e.g., as a lucky or unlucky number)?

Disagree The present draft of the article does not take note of any cultural significance.

Is it listed in a book such as David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or Jean-Marie De Koninck's Those Fascinating Numbers, or on Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number?" webpage?

Agree It's listed only once in the first reference (for the sequence-of-three-semiprimes property), 40 times in the second reference (I don't have a physical copy to check in more detail, but some percentage of these at least appear to be notable rather than passing mentions), and included on the Friedman webpage.

Since 213 passes 2 of the above 3 criteria, it may be borderline, but overall I think that it meets WP:SNG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing interesting in the article, this is just an integer like any other. The only criterion that it might satisfy is that it is the smallest uninteresting number, which is kind of interesting. But if we used this criterion then all integers would be interesting, so we can't. Tercer (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers and the assessment above? Which part of the assessment do you disagree with? Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that its mathematical properties are interesting. The sum and product of its digits are the same, fine, that's mildly interesting, but the rest? Who cares? Tercer (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to decide what is interesting. It's up to reliable sources. None of which seem to say that this number is interesting, so... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears early in some OEIS-nice sequences [17][18], as well as a couple OEIS-hard sequences that look straightforward to explain [19][20]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's really hard, if ever possible, to find a natural number smaller than 10000 which is not in OEIS. Olaf (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't just that the number is in OEIS, it's that it appears in sequences that have been designated more interesting than the others, and early enough in those sequences that it can be a useful example of them. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. This seems interesting enough to me. BD2412 T 04:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 Can you do better than WP:ITSINTERESTING? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: I thought that it would be clear from the context that I am talking about the number being mathematically interesting, within the requirements of the notability standard for numbers, and not the routine sort of "interesting". BD2412 T 19:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @BD2412 Fair, but which sources do discuss this number (show that it is interesting) in a mathematical sense, meeting WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  But WP:SIGCOV does not apply? SNG (numbers) overrides it. Regarding sources, see all of David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or Jean-Marie De Koninck's Those Fascinating Numbers, or on Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number? above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  My reading of WP:SNG suggests that meeting SNG is helpful but not sufficient to provide immunity from GNG: " topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. Olaf (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then discuss whether to merge. Peter James (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Caleb Stanford. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:53, 21 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. Sandstein 09:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic flag[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

this article violates many policies and guidelines of wikipedia:

per WP:FRINGE, this flag created by a small group and they claim it is "Coptic flag" want to make it a fact and real flag but it isn't, in the article (It is not recognized by the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and it is not recognized by any official Coptic organization), So this flag according to whom? there is no evidence that Coptic groups in Egypt or any churchs are using or recognized it, New Zealand Coptic Association and the Free Copts (who created the flag) just a small private associations and not represent Copts at any official level, also this is not standard to make it a flag for whole Coptic.
per WP:Notabilty, this hypothetical flag created in 2005 and after 17 years there is no notabilty, no reliable sources nor significant coverage, only links from those who claim that, all links in first nomination are dead or not exist.
per WP:VERIFY, the majority of the article are personal opinions or claims without any refs.

finally: WP:SOAPBOX Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, and this article try to promote something is not fact or real. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 07:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tip: please read WP:ATA, we want a "substantive discussion". --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 09:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Egypt. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 07:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What reasons? Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: sorry, it's Edit conflict --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 09:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This flag concept is old enough to drive but still non-notable. Much of the article reads like one of those alt history wikis. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would like to know who created the flag and who accepts or uses it. The previous AFD resulted in "keep" though some of the later editors opposed this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. References 1 and 3 lead to "Page not found" errors. Reference 2 leads somewhere completely irrelevant. Athel cb (talk) 12:41, 20 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 11:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briana Pozner[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 16:15, 23 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!} 21:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think she is probably a working actor, who is not necessarily notable at this time. The most I can find is casting lists. Supposedely a writer and director but its very early career. As a writer, she wrote several episodes of The Non-Essentials and directed a couple of shorts. The casts list, show her quite far the list. I don't think she is notable. It could be very early career. There is nothing on the Flea theatres, just indications of a jobbing actor. scope_creep^Talk 11:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for speedy deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 7 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!} 03:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production. Nor has the subject made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Insufficient coverage to meet any other notability guideline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:59, 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!} 03:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Mussard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Africa, and France. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:25, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ne'emia Kaleopa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:53, 14 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) 02:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 20 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!} 03:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lasu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:03, 14 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) 03:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (or keep – depending overall votes) – Per found sources: [21][22][23][24][25].--MonFrontieres (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nation is clearly significant coverage. Eye Radio is mostly a Q&A but does contain some commentary at the start. AGI is also an article completely about her. She passes WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides the sources already in the article and the ones MonFrontieres provided, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this show she is notable in South Sudan. Article may need improvement, but definelty not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yet another failure of WP:BEFORE by nominator. Plenty of sources showing SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per significant coverage. Giant Snowman 13:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources listed above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:53, 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. 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!} 03:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tala Luvu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:50, 14 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) 02:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:56, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisi Leututu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:49, 14 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) 02:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 20 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!} 03:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pati Feagiai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 14 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) 02:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 20 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!} 03:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael D'Angelo Herrera[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:45, 14 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) 02:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:40, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mariko[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:43, 14 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) 02:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack any source that would even add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 20 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!} 03:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savaliga Afu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:39, 14 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) 02:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:41, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lavalu Fatu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:37, 14 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) 02:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of articles lacking sources that provide significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 20 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!} 03:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Faoa-Danielson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:34, 14 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) 02:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:41, 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 delete. Star Mississippi 13:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022 Philadelphia shooting[edit]

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

Non-notable shooting. No lasting effects. No major coverage. Veggies (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Veggies (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another routine shooting in the US. Nobody killed, no indication of lasting significance. WWGB (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS (the basis of my PROD which would have ended today). Ribbet32 (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly, routine in the USA lately. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. WP:NOTNEWS. Love of Corey (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I gather from the short comments here that the consensus so far is to delete this per WP:NOTNEWS #2 (News reports). The description there points to WP:ROUTINE which I'm not convinced applies here. Sure, we're all fatigued by these shootings and perhaps not too suprised when another happens (at least if it happens far away from us). But they're certainly not scheduled events and I'd be surprised if we're at the point where they could be described as WP:MILL. It may be too soon to assess whether there will be sustained coverage but gun violence in the US is getting a lot of international attention and there are reliable sources tracking all incidents for use in ongoing reporting so it is a definite possibility. In any case, I don't see anyone advocating deleting this on WP:TOOSOON grounds. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON applies here as well. News breaking of two police officers shot in Philadelphia on the Fourth of July doesn't automatically equate to a Wikipedia article. Love of Corey (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for sources and was unable to find a single news article published after July 7; most news sources stopped covering this attack after July 5. An event that gets only a few days of media coverage falls firmly under the banner of WP:NOTNEWS. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion in the encyclopedia and this is no exception; there is no evidence of enduring notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 21 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!} 03:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake B[edit]

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

Non notable performer. No significant coverage in independent RS found (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Northern Ireland. (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed, artist is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:F907:BE01:2C1B:4372:201:FF82 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC) — 2A00:23C7:F907:BE01:2C1B:4372:201:FF82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Jake B is notable, you only have to google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerfordjs1234 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC) — Writerfordjs1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Showing up in a Google search is meaningless when the results are nothing but his own self-promotions. Mr. B. might want to change his stage name too, because at least two other DJ's in various countries beat him to it. This one from Northern Ireland only appears in minor directory listings for his own show, which also has received no media notice. Not even close to Wikipedia's requirements for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even vanity spammers usually have better ~~fake~~ press than this guy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, appears to have been written by the subject of the article. Coasterlover1994 17:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:42, 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 12:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Kalinov[edit]

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

Article relies on weak sources, one the subject is briefly mentioned, another is his obituary. Only two pages link to this one, one is a list of deaths in 2017 and the other is for the company he worked for. Article does not detail any reason for notability and is mostly about his company not the subject of the article. Additionally a google search does not offer any additional information or sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Fails WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Attempted to speedy delete as per WP:A7 but was reverted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 7 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!} 00:38, 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~~ redirect to Hindu astrology. TigerShark (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shatpancashika[edit]

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

Article relies on one source. The article is an orphan without a clear set of other articles or topics to group it with. Article does not detail any reason for notability, a google search WP:GOOGLETEST does not offer any additional information or sources to establish WP:GNG. Attempted to speedy delete as per WP:A1 and WP:A3 but was reverted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rationale for deletion is missing; please re-add it (I assume the server gremlins ate it). Nate • (chatter) 01:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this, not sure why the server gremlins ate this AfD but not the other two. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Astrology, and Hinduism. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jyotisha, merging the single cited claim in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect; a short stub that certainly doesn't meet GNG. Found another passing mention here in a questionable book, with a niche publisher. I also agree with Chiswick Chap that the single claim could potentially be merged, but the redirect target is difficult, as Jyotisha is also a redirect, so maybe Hindu astrology? It opens with that Jyotisha or Jyotishya (from Sanskrit jyotiṣa, from jyót “light, heavenly body" and ish - from Isvara or God) is the traditional Hindu system of astrology, so possible here. If not, I also support deletion. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It shouldn't be a redirect to Jyotisha which is just a redirect itself, not an article. Do you have another redirect target in mind? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 14 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!} 00:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Junk article on a rare WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE topic that violates WP:FRINGE. No reason to redirect anywhere. Such articles should be deleted. Venkat TL (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hindu astrology. The article is about an early mediaeval manuscript, pseudoscience and fringe guidelines are not relevant here. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This Astrology related topic is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience work (new or old) are treated similarly. No special pass for old. Venkat TL (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those guidelines are about article content, nothing precludes Wikipedia from having articles or redirects on any work considered pseudoscientific in the present day. there are thousands of articles on works about everything from alchemy, occult, astrology etc. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranelie Cain[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing here is not adequate to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 20 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!} 03:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlique Gumbs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:43, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Guishard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The sources are all simple line-up listings, like the article, they do not contain any biographical information. The sources may support claims in the article but they do not add up to WP:GNG. Possible redirect - If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article, for example a parent article (if notability has been established) of a soccer team, or an article about a notable football match. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:43, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Griffith[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even one source that would add toward passing GNG is here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 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!} 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Smith[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:43, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Shearman (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:43, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fladimir Septus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have enough sourcing to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 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.