Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 01	July 03 >

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!} 19:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yovani Bauta[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. –Ploni (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This artist does not meet our notability criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. After conducting a BEFORE search, I was able to find one review:[1], which is not nearly enough. In addtion to the lack of critical/art historical coverage, I cannot find any indication of a distinguished exhibition record at notable museums or galleries, or notable museum collections. As an academic, he fails WP:NACADEMIC. Netherzone (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough significant independant coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found an art-gallery bio for Bauta, which lists several collections with his works in them. The only one that appeared to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article was Lowe Art Museum, a university art museum local to Bauta, which I was able to verify had his work through the museum site [2]. I don't think that's enough for WP:CREATIVE #4d, but if other notable museums, especially more significant or non-local ones, could be shown to have collected his works then I could be persuaded to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many mentions in GBooks, this one [3] mentions his influence over 2-3 paragraphs, not sure if that's enough to put him over the top for notability. His art was featured in a Salon in Cuba here [4] and is/was in the collection of a gallery in Cuba here [5] and something here [6] I think the gov't got him to design an official artwork. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to examine whether new sources found are enough to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet WP:GNG Kazanstyle (talk) 17:18, 9 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 States Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (India). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission[edit]

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

This is going to be a bundled nomination. User:Gardenkur has a method of creating runs of articles which consists of writing a single generic article about a public body in India, and then reproducing it multiple times with minor variations for each Indian state. These are almost entirely cut and paste jobs, though each one usually has a couple of refs that are specific to the state in the title. In my view these state institutions are not independently notable and each instance should be redirected to a lemma article, in this case State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (India). Bringing here to see what the consensus is. Mccapra (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and India. Mccapra (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mccapra. There are few reasons for having these articles. 1. The same topic was discussed earlier on Information Commission for different states and it was decided that the article for different states on same subject needs to stay. 2. The articles are of public interest for relevant states in India. 3. Already there were few articles in this subject for other states and I added only left over states. 4. Its my efforts to get uniformity and quality in this series of articles. Hope this clarifies. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references aren’t even about the topic. They’re about Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions in general, so they establish that the commissions in general are notable, not that each states instance of it is. These are just copied wholesale from one article to another. Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mccapra. Thanks for your reply. It was earlier discussed with other editors too on the relevant of having policies of regulatory agencies. Across all states of India they are guided by same policies. Its in public interest that offices of these commissions are important. Arent these articles in the interest of general public. Kindly guide. Gardenkur (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that’s why I suggested creating a single article about each generic agency, and then just mentioning in that article which states have an agency. Writing the same article out thirty times is a great way to bump up your article creation stats but doesn’t really add any value for the reader. I mean they're such cut-and-paste jobs that when you copied the Punjab article to create the Madhya Pradesh article you didn’t even change the wording so it still says “Punjab” in the text. This is just a pointless production line of cookie-cutter articles. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mccapra. Thanks for your reply. However, few things to be considered 1. Every such organisations for different states have separate articles like Municipal Corporation,Election commission 2. Having independent articles gives information about their offices and persons holding the chair 3. In future some other person will come up on same 4. The articles will not be structured properly as Iam correcting now in many of them creating bad image for Wikipedia. Kindly share your opinion too. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Madhya Pradesh and Punjab. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:41, 28 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!} 23:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete them all or redirect to a singular national-level subject. There's certainly no question that each of these are actual entities that do exist, but sources like this don't provide coverage or notability for the individual commissions and don't even mention them by name in any way, instead mentioning the national-level commission. Sources like that are being used to support content about the individual commissions, which it just doesn't support. Comments above about the importance of the subject or the importance of meeting the public interest fall under WP:USEFUL. There is a lot of information that is important and absolutely crucial to many people that still fall outside the scope of needing to have an article on Wikipedia. The articles need to show notability under WP:GNG, and these just fall short of that. - Aoidh (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - (ATD). The umbrella article already exists, in fact, as States Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (India) (which is actually about the SCDR Commissions). Ingratis (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I should have seen that! I’m happy to redirect them all there unless the consensus is otherwise. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 4 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!} 23:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Neyra[edit]

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

Article about footballer who had a very brief spell of professional football (2 Paraguayan league matches) which would have scraped by on the now-deprecated NFOOTBALL. I checked for SIGCOV and only found trivial coverage, and just one in-depth article on his transfer to Douglas Haig (it's now in the article). I don't believe there is enough there to satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he played 2 matches in the fully pro Paraguayan top flight. Also, I found these sources (1, 2, and 3) about him. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the second source is in-depth, but the ABC Color source is routine/trivial for sure. The Misiones online source has one paragraph on Neyra's career, plus an interview on his club's promotion. I wouldn't call that routine, but it also isn't in-depth. If there were more available, perhaps we could reach the GNG, but not on these sources. Jogurney (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are trivial and are not WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources from Das Osmnezz are 1) roughly 4 sentences in Misiones Online followed by an interview; 2) another 3 sentences of commentary alongside an interview; 3) routine signing coverage. The Spanish-language media I found was all passing mentions in routine recaps. Nothing here meeting GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Lindsey[edit]

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

Unlikely to pass WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 15:52, 25 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!} 23:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The article's subject can have his profile on LinkedIn, but this resume doesn't belong here. - Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 3 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, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaza Koshkadze[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG; no significant coverage found. – Ploni (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Georgia (country). Ploni (talk) 15:48, 25 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!} 23:33, 2 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 This Island Earth (novel). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interocitor[edit]

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

Fictional device. The article likely fails WP:GNG, one RS is cited ([7]) but I don't see any analysis of this concept, just some plo summary. Other than that we have a mostly unreferenced plot summary and WP:IPC/WP:NOTTVTROPES list of media that use the word interocitor. Trivia all the way down, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like Ansible it's somewhat of a SF touchstone or injoke, which is why the portion of the article listing mentions is more than just trivia. Would agree that verbiage to that effect and more references would improve the article. Artw (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You provide no arguments for this meeting WP:GNG. We could consider a merge to ansible (which has the unreferencec claim that " For example, similar communication functions were included in a device called an interocitor in the 1952 nove"), but frankly, it doesn't look notable either. Perhaps a merge of both to Faster-than-light_communication#Fictional_devices could salvage something (and result in redirects). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I not seeing your WP:GNG failure or either of those as useful merges. Artw (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've acquired a copy of the essay collection, The New Utopian Politics of Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Dispossessed, which discusses the ansible in terms of ecological political theory, literary analysis, and societal ideals. The ansible also has a scientific paper devoted to the idea, The Monogamy of Entanglement and the Impossibility of the Creation of a Quantum Ansible, published in the Moscow University Physics Bulletin. On this basis, I disagree with merging ansible. (For future reference, the essay collection also gives us a lead, Reflections on Le Guin's Narrative Shifts by Jim Jose, published in Science-Fiction Studies, and the ansible's symbolic significance is discussed in the article The Thought Experimentation in the Science Fiction of Le Guin Balaji by Anandrao Navle, but I'm unable to make sense of the details of the publication that article was in.) I shall be adding these things to that article. I also suck at doing so, and could use a hand from any editors who're familiar with literary theory. --Kiz o r 22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kizor I'll be happy to c/e your edits, ping me when you'd like me to take a look. Back on topic, what do you think we should do with the article on interocitor? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I remember the Interocitor scene from when they did The Island Earth on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I thought surely I'd be able to find some sources for it. I found plenty of T-shirts for sale with the interocitor on it, along with 3d printer schematics, fan art, and all kinds of things named after the Interocitor, but I just couldn't find any sources about the article's subject itself. It looks like it's some cultural interest there, but that doesn't mean it warrants a Wikipedia article. On Google Books I did find a few mentions of it, though really only in passing as part of a synopsis for The Island Earth (both the book and the movie). For better or worse the article's subject just does not meet WP:GNG (and I'm not aware of any more specific notability guidelines that might apply). - Aoidh (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to This Island Earth (novel), where it first appeared and whose role in the plot is already fully described. There is really no sources about the device that would make it independently notable, and the vast bulk of the article is simply a recap of the plot of the book and its film adaptation. The rest of the article besides that is just unsourced trivia, much of which is minor "appearances" of the device or word. I could potentially see an "influences"-type section being added to the This Island Earth (novel) article mentioning that the device went on to be a sci-fi "in-joke" in later works, but as this article has no actual sourced content discussing that, then merging anything over to do that would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect a good target is This Island Earth (novel) where it is already mentioned. Lightburst (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminates of Thanateros[edit]

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

Notability not evident, sourcing dubious, written like a fan page. Acous mana 12:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Acous mana 12:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's like reading about D&D, but there is some sourcing, and this is acceptable--though one wonders what a relatively decent publisher like Greenwood is doing publishing this. Drmies (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on .. that book refers to "the introduction to his book, Liber Null and Psychonaut" and directly quotes Peter Carroll's description of IoT. Peter Carroll is the founder of IoT so that source is essentially a PRIMARY source and isn't acceptable for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IoT is a notable organization with a significant influence on contemporary occultism and spirituality. However, the article is indeed not written in an encyclopedic or scientific way. I think we should keep the article. Schenkstroop (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, while the page is badly written, IoT is notable. Sourcing seems fine. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 11:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep, or merge into chaos magic. alternative culture during the 1990s, particularly industrial music and metal genres, was heavily influenced by chaos magic specifically, and this philosophy club was demonstrably significant in the propagation of that memetic. the article itself as prose reads similar to other accounts of secretive societies, with the usual sourcing issues, vandalism, dubious claims. bill burroughs and trent reznor's association might be enough to satisfy inclusion. 98.225.27.171 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the reference identified by Schenkstroop below and the referenced works within, meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. ~~Delete~~strike previous !vote This is an organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are very particular criteria for establishing notability - we need to see references that discuss the *organization* (not the founders) in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the organization* and 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. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, I'm unable to find any and none of the Keep !voters above have provided any except for one book source which fails ORGIND. The topic organization is already mentioned in Chaos magic. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following source:

Otto, Bernd-Christian (2020). "The Illuminates of Thanateros and the institutionalisation of religious individualisation". In Fuchs, Martin; et al. (eds.). Religious Individualisation. p. 762. doi:10.1515/9783110580853-038.

Schenkstroop (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Sky Analytics[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Most of the sources are unreliable. ChristinaNY (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ChristinaNY (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (As Creator): Sources are reliable. Times of India is a largest selling English-language daily in the world (per Wikipedia) and it has a dedicated article about Blue Sky, Forbes India article about Blue Sky is again dedicated and is written by Forbes India staff not contributor, As well as in Mint (newspaper) here and others. However Text can be edited if required to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. 1990ricardo (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable. Fails NCORP, because the article is merely a list of funders. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 28 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!} 23:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As has been said above, the article just completely fails WP:NCORP. The claim to notability here is that they raised money, and that just doesn't cut it. - Aoidh (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA. The only source that comes even close to WP:NCORP's criteria is the Forbes article (fancy that), but it's still slightly dependent. The others cited by 1990ricardo are dependent. FalconK (talk) 07:12, 3 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 speedily deleted as copyvio by Jimfbleak. Some of the comments below seem to indicate that the reason for the speedy deletion may be objected to. Discussion with Jimfbleak may be called for, perhaps with escalation to WP:DRV if the result of such discussion is thought to be unsatisfactory. Deor (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thermotunnel cooling[edit]

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

While cooling by tunneling effects could be a thing is still very early to say WP:TOOSOON . The term thermotunnel does not offer many results in Scholar. Additionally, all equations and most of the terminology of this article are taken from a single paper. ReyHahn (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. ReyHahn (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG based on the (WP:AGF) sources in the article and what google throws up. This is also known as thermotunneling and thermotunnel refrigeration and there are many more sources that can be be found using these search terms. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I counted two pages of Google Scholar on thermotunneling with barely cited articles. --ReyHahn (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second this. Saying that Google spit up a bunch of "results" is not what WP:GNG is. I still have a look a bit, but I'm just not seeing secondary sources that really summarize this for us, just a bunch of primaries so far. KoA (talk) 21:48, 28 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!} 23:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because the content is encyclopedic but, per above, I'm not sure the topic merits its own article due to WP:TOOSOON. I lack the expertise to determine where it should be merged to, though. Another issue on the current article is it doesn't seem to indicate if/whether this phenomenon is proposed/hypothesized, or whether it's well-demonstrated and accepted by the scientific community in this area. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think since the name is a bit long and the article lead uses thermotunneling, I would move to thermotunneling or thermotunnel. But that's a separate discussion. As far as secondary sources:
- the Brown 2010 source in the article seems the best notability source, it has a detailed 3-4 paragraph description.
- [8] from 2014 has a sentence description. It also says "This technology is in the early stages of R&D, and the authors were unable to identify any prototypes or demonstrations beyond basic materials research." This source also includes thermotunneling in several graphs and tables comparing cooling solutions.
- [9] has 4 sentences
- [10] has a paragraph description.
- [11] from 2022 has a 10 sentence description.

I think this is sufficient to show notability per GNG - thermotunneling comes up often as a distinct entry in listings of cooling techniques, and these are all reliable independent sources. Admittedly the coverage besides the Brown source is a bit lacking (although still enough for a stub). The issue seems to be that nobody has a prototype that actually cools, and its predicted efficiency is comparable to vapor cooling so it is not a research priority. If this article was going to be merged I would say Cooling - that article is just a list now but should be expanded into summary-style, and then it could list all the other proposed cooling techniques. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The whole article is a copyvio of [12], made by the WP:SPA Tombistolas. Tercer (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. If there's a topic that warrants an article here, and an editor willing to do the work, it would have to be rewritten from scratch anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Mathnerd314159. Since the article existed long before copyright violations were introduced, copyvio is grounds for reversion, not deletion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Copyvio removed, evidence of notability not rebutted. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as this this about a physics topic, I am teh WP:CIR about the substantive issue of notability. As for the assertion that it is a copyright violation of a page on a website that will write your term essay for you, it would appear to me they had scraped the November 2005 version of this article Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samthong College[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Across the many citations in the article, there's ample evidence to establish the notability of the village of Sam Thong, but the only discussion of the school are in primary sources that don't contribute to establishing notability.

There's a fair amount of well-sourced information in this article about the village, and also content that could probably be incorporated into Education in Laos. As such, rather than deletion, I think that this article should be moved to Sam Thong and content also merged to Education in Laos. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Laos. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The village name is Sam Thong, the High Middle School name is naming and associated "partly" Sam Thong. I have clarified in my response to your question that this article is about the Middle High School founded in the "village" of Sam Thong.2601:448:8400:7E80:0:0:0:170D (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here is whether the school should have an article on Wikipedia. My position, based on the sources I've seen, is no. This would normally be a straightorward deletion discussion, but the presence of content that could be used at other articles I am proposing an atypical outcome to allow for further work with this material. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that this school does not deserve to have its article in Wikipedia like other schools in Western countries? What are your "sources" of information that are missing in this article? Do you know that the school was founded at the time of the Vietnam war, there were no newspapers and television or media like today. It is very difficult to find a piece of newspaper or article paper to support it. Do you also know that there were few people who knew how to read and write during that time? Americans focused on war and we were content to endure the suffering of war. At that time, there were few people who knew the village of Sam Thong as well as the Lycee Samthong or Sam Thong. If you want me to quote newspapers, books, magazines or articles on this school, ask yourself the questions of the Americans who were in Sam Thong during the Vietnam War why they did not want to write an article on this school, since it was Pob Buell who started this humanitarian aid program in Xiengkhouaang, Laos. He was one of the people who founded this school. I don't know what other "sources" of information you deem worth validating as sources to support my article. So you find that all the phrases and words that are written in the USAID program were lies? My information that I can provide is only based on the documents of the American soldiers and the American USAID, there are no others. The rest of the documents are articles that people wrote about their lives and their past in the books during the war when they were in the army with the Americans. Alrs, I try to find a piece of article here and there to support my article and the forgotten school. There are no other solutions or means like in Europe or in the USA. It will be easy if it was in the USA or in Europe, I wouldn't be there.NruasPaoYPP (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's notability guidelines are based on the availability of secondary sources. It is tragic that due to war and other challenges, such information may not be available for certain topics that were nevertheless important, but it leaves us unable to write an article without relying on original research using primary sources, which is not the kind of material that Wikipedia publishes.

That having been said, as I mentioned in the nomination statement, much of the information in this article can be preserved in other articles. The school could be briefly mentioned in an article about Sam Thong, as is standard for schools that don't meet notability guidelines for a standalone article (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you and take the Wikipedia page below for discussing a bit. Would you like to take a glance on it? There are some more articles like this one, but I think this is just an example and would be enough.

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Christian_Schools

What did you find interesting about this article? Do you want to tell me what is notable in this Wikipedia article? What is the difference between my article and this one? Does it mean that this article is about a school in California? Does that mean that we can put anything in Wikipedia when it comes to the USA? Currently, Wikipedia pages for education in Laos do not yet exist. If there is, there are very few. NruasPaoYPP (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that article was written in 2017, during a period where our new page patrol was not keeping up with the output of new articles. As written, it definitely falls short of notability guidelines. I'm able to find some local newspaper articles that may have suitable coverage of that school on ProQuest: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] but I don't have access to the articles beyond the headlines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, about " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Christian_Schools", tell me what are the references that you believe they cover this article? What do you mean about "short of notability" guideline? What is the reference? Why you want to spend time to find some local newspaper articles to cover this article for people? Do you want to favor them? Instead wasting the time to find the local newspaper guidelines that may have suitable coverage of this school, why don't you want to delete it such as you want to do for my article? Thanks. 2601:448:8400:7E80:0:0:0:370F (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the Wikipedia article below has enough source of information to standalone article. Don't you question about deletion or it has enough source?

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Christian_Schools

NruasPaoYPP (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the additional sources I found are 95% likely to be enough to meet WP:GNG and that was just from going halfway down the first page of ProQuest results. So the article needs a lot of work, but I think that it is possible to do such work without needing to engage in original research with primary sources.

Also, it's worth remembering other stuff exists. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roseguill, I understand your recommendation for this article, I need proof with newspaper articles (especially in English), magazines, books, or pieces of television or media talking about this school "Samthong college". But I want to say that this college (Samthong college) was not a "Haward University" in Laos, it was a bush school founded by humanitarian aid funds during the Vietnam War. The purpose of this aid was to allow children of refugees from the Vietnam War to have access to education like other children in the world. At that time, few people had the High School Diploma. How do you expect there to be newspaper articles or books written about this school. Do you want to ask the question to Pop Buell and the American soldiers who were with Siver Stalone in the movie "Rambo 1+2+3)? why there was none among Pob Buel and the other Americans wanted to talk a page where to write an article about this high school? Wherever you are at that time or now, I want to tell you that there are no newspapers and books written about this school and maybe other schools that are were in Laos. Most people didn't have a High School Diploma at that time. Even if there were, they should all be dead by now. Besides, there were very few people who could write a book or a newspaper page at that time. This was due to the level of national education in Laos. There was a prestigious high school at that time in Laos called "Lycee Auguste Parvie de Vientiane". It was a High school which was created by the French of the time.Auguste Parvie was the first French officer to enter Laos in 1983. There had only one university at the time, it was Dongdok university. Today it is called Dongdok National University. For all these reasons, how can I find press articles, books, magazines, and well-known authors who have written about Samthong college. Will you read the scraps of USAID paper that I could find and put them back together in small pieces to support that it was not a lie as you hope and believe. Thanks. NruasPaoYPP (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond to most of this since I think we're going in circles, but I do want to point out that non-English sources are perfectly fine, so if you're able to provide secondary coverage in Lao or French that would be very much welcome. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here has become a game of hide and seek. For me, this is the first time I hear you accept articles published in other languages to support a page published in English Wikipedia pages. This should be news to me and also new guidelines and procedures from Wikipedia. In my other articles, it was not what others told me. They told me that only pages written in English and published in English, including Wikipedia pages, are only accepted when not written or published in another language. From then on, they refused what I submitted before to support my Wikipedia articles. So why do you say now that you accept documents written in the Lao language and in French? Are these new orientation procedures? For the requirements you asked for, I really don't know what to say, as you weren't in Sam Thong and Laos during that time. You might think that the country of Laos and the society we lived in back then was like California and New York in the United States. No, it wasn't like that. There were almost no newspapers in Laos. If I remember correctly, there was a local newspaper in the capital of Vientiane, not in other regions. How to get a journalist to write an article about a school like Samthong college in a rural area? However, transport did not allow it. Did you read the paragraphs I quoted in my article as follows? "The school was founded in 1966, then in January 1970, the battle "Campaign 139 forced Samthong middle school to move to Sokpaluang, Vientiane". The life of this school only lasted 3 years in Sam Thong, he There's no more than that. Besides, no one back then was interested in writing articles like people do today.

The only thing I can provide as evidence to cover and back up this article is pieces of paper that I have collected from people who have spent part of their lives teaching or students who have studied at this school during existing school life. You can find the names of the people I mentioned as follows: Tou-Fu Vang, Wangyee Vang, then Phong Yang. The first person was the principal of Samthong middle school in 1969 - 1970. While Wangyee Vang was a math teacher. As for Phong Yang, he was a student and left school after 4th grade to join General Vang Pao's T-28 pilot squadron after 1971. For the Notable Alumni person, there was Lormong Lo. You can read his biography if you wish. It should be published in Wikipedia pages under Lormong Lo. Thanks. NruasPaoYPP (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, I don't see anything as references for the article "National University of Laos - Wikipedia".

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

I think this cannot standalone in Wikipedia, because it does not make sense. It needs to be deleted. I don't know what do you think about this? As I have suggested before, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Christian_Schools

The Wikipedia page above would need to review the same. Otherwise, there is a discrimination of minority and race. Thanks. NruasPaoYPP (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, Although Samthong High School did not have brilliant teachers and students who made careers like Tiger Wood, Michael Jordan, and others such as Russell Wilson, Rob Gronkowski, Patrick Mahomes, J. J. Watt, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger and more in the columns of newspapers and books, but don't forget that there was one of the Principals of Samthong High School and one of the teachers who joined General Vang Pao's army to protect the American soldiers. All this deserves to be said and quoted here, especially in my article "Samthong college". Do you have to have courage like these people to protect someone from elsewhere for good or for worse? it was courage that they did and defended the american soldiers. Not only Tou-Fu Vang, who was the Head Director, there was Wangyee Vang who was a teacher, then there was also Phon Yang. They put their lives on the line to protect others without realizing what is about to happen, so their careers and lives don't deserve to say "notability" value here in this article? However, there is Lormong Lo who has started his studies at Samthong College. It does not deserve to quote here? And you, during this time, where were you? With Silver Stalone to shoot the movie "Rambo"? 2601:448:8400:7E80:0:0:0:170D (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm failing to see why this should be included at not other schools. I do not think this is more notable than the majority of middle/high schools. Wozal (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wozal, thanks for your suggestion. Where are you coming from? Included Samthong college in what? This school was in Laos, not in the United States or France or Western countries. In which school do you want to include this school with? It has nothing to do with The ward or Princeton University in the United States or Louis Legrand high School in Paris, France. So how do you want to include it with others? Give me a name of a high school in Laos where I can include it? Do you know one? What's its name? I would like to know if you can give me the name and the article of those schools that you know in Laos and they have their article published in Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia? I just want to know the "name" of the middle high school or "high school" that has a page published in Wikipedia, that it is. NruasPaoYPP (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm with Rosguill here. I struggled to get through the sources and see what makes this "middle high school"/college(?) notable. Sam Thong appears to have been the location of a USAID refugee center in Laos until 1970, but there's really nothing to show notability of this namesake college. Perhaps as suggested above a compromise could be to add some brief info to Education in Laos. @NruasPaoYPP: if you can find any sources in Laotian, please include them. Otherwise we don't have very much to work with here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support Rosguill's suggestion to repurpose to Sam Thong, as long as I'm not the one doing it. This is not a straightforward article move, but rather, it requires substantial work. Almost every town mentioned in this article has no coverage on Wikipedia. That is a terrible state of affairs and highlights our institutional bias to Western countries. We shouldn't be deleting what little information we have. SpinningSpark 10:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flipper Trophy[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur football competition. Only primary sources available, fails WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ascension Island#Football as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails WP:GNG; I cannot ind WP:SIGCOV of this trophy from multiple independent RS despite a thorough search. I oppose a redirect; there are other awards that are known as the "flipper trophy", such as a Sri Lankan women's rowing award and I do not believe that the trophy associated with Ascension Island's soccer league is the primary topic for the search term "flipper trophy".
Delete - Agree that this is a non-notable trophy, and a redirect doesn't work since it's not the main usage of the term. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there really doesn't seem to be any decent news coverage at all. ProQuest shows that other trophies share this name so I too would recommend 'delete' rather than 'redirect' as there is no evidence of this particular Flipper Trophy being the primary topic and, in any case, it sure isn't notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 9 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Hall (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) 21:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's another Ashley hall who plays football, so be careful about sources. [18] [19] [20] --IdiotSavant (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saono Enesi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Mavaega[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other delete arguments. Nice work all! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's Day[edit]

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I did a WP:BEFORE and found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and only newspaper listings on Newspapers.com. I found no suitable RS coverage enough to pass WP:NEXIST; I find it surprising and unusual I found no significant coverage considering that the film was distributed by MGM/UA. The Film Creator (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took some serious digging, but I managed to find coverage for the film. It certainly wasn't easy, as there were legit hundreds of junk hits for every one actual usable source. And that's just trying with Newspapers.com! The reviews for this are kind of funny in that when they're negative, they tended to be pretty candid. They don't beat the ones for Grumpy Cat's Worst Christmas Ever, but those are hard to beat for sheer humor value. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work to User:ReaderofthePack. I think the lesson to be learned is that I shouldn’t give up too soon when doing a WP:BEFORE search. In my defense, I always nominate out of good faith because my goal is to help the project, not hurt it. Once again, ReaderofthePack I thank you for your excellent work and improvements to the article; I speedy withdraw this nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! In my interactions you are always fair and to be honest, I can completely understand how you didn't find anything. Searching for this one was incredibly tough! Don't beat yourself up over it! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tulima Mauga[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:59, 3 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!} 18:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Severina Mana'o[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is already mentioned in her sister's article Alma Mana'o and that is sufficient, as she lacks any coverage outside of the passing mentions in NBC Sports (2018), etc.; she was playing for American Samoa when she was only 17 years old. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:59, 3 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!} 18:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solange Larkingam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched under the name used in this article and "Solange Larkinguem" and found no SIGCOV. Other than the one passing mention already used, I found Foot o Féminin but this is a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 9 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!} 18:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florencia Yamale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the level of coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above CreecregofLife (talk) 05:22, 8 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!} 18:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sukoluhle Sibandze[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources are all trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mentioned in a few match reports in GNews and ProQuest but no SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 9 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. Deor (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsasan-Okhin Orgodol[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Asia, and Mongolia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can only find passing mentions in match reports in Saipan Tribune and Metro West Daily News Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person does not meet our guidelines for WP:SPORTSCRIT Lightburst (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; passing mentions and database entries aren't enough to meet GNG or Sport guidelines. VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lerman Abdo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SL93 (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A-Jacks[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this concrete product. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first source in article is good, second source is not. So current state of article fails GNG. However, I also found [21], [22], [23], [24]. That seems sufficient for GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Consider this withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 4 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in games[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON; no actual content here. Would CSD this but would probably be declined. – Meena • 20:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete The article lacks content and fails GNG, though more board game articles could be created as more notable games appear in 2022, so IMO drafting or deleting the article are all right. VickKiang (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Keep A few articles have been added, and the issues are addressed. After the SdJ results in July is completed, it could be added, so I've added a strikethrough to the delete vote. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Added: Frosthaven, Abram Khasin, Yuri Averbakh. Yevrowl (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, we are half way into 2022. There is plenty to put here. Appears to meet WP:LISTN as it stands. keep. Hobit (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit, also noting that Origins concluded recently so their awards can be added, and GenCon will be next month and they do awards as well. Spiel des Jahres is also a major award, and I'm sure there are others. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oyinkansola Alabi) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alabi Oyinkansola[edit]

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

Lack of independent and reliable references to establish notability. AmirŞah 19:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. AmirŞah 19:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are independent of the sources. The person is notable. She belongs to Forbes Business Council and was contributed to saving a Nigerian musician's life. If you think the article is not notable, please, kindly explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandysoil719 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a celebrity's therapist does not establish notability. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it was non-notable vanity spam in 2019 when it was last AFD'd and nothing has changed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:12, 3 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!} 18:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saimir Çelhaka[edit]

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

This passes the old WP:NFOOTBALL but now that WP:GNG is required, I'm not sure any more. Nothing found in Google News and ProQuest. A search in DDG yielded only the one trivial mention in Sport Ekspres. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 2 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)} 19:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to having enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 5 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) Kj cheetham (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hakki Akdeniz[edit]

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

Was deleted previously because of being advertising and recreated again. AmirŞah 19:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Turkey, and New York. AmirŞah 19:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the creation of similar articles by multiple accounts, I hope someone is looking into sock puppetry/UPE. Assuming that's not an issue, it should at least be histmerged with Draft:Hakki Akdeniz. The subject is notable, with a number of decent sources covering him. Could be a bio; could be merged into a history/background section of an article about Champion Pizza (a fairly well known chain in NYC). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep According to my survey, it was deleted before, deu to having advertising or promotional context. It has been created by another user. Before creating this article, they have created another article about a notable Turkish actor. This article is their second created article about a notable Turkish chef. Therefore I do not think about sockspupet. About article, the subject is clearly notable and has been featured in VOA, NY Times, CNN and ect. Also the context of article is encyclopedic and we can't find any promotional or advertising context. Fabiobengario (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please share you reason of nomination perspicuously! It was deleted before is not reliable reason to nominate this article for deletion. Because as you mentioned, it was deleted because of using advertising context and this article was written in natural point of view, so there's no reason to nominate the article for deletion! Meanwhile subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. —Natalie RicciNatalie 20:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. sources in article shows a clear pass of WP:GNG. regarding to advertising, couldn't find any advertising content and it has been written naturally. Alimovvarsu (talk) 22:02, 8 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!} 18:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghodawat[edit]

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

Does not appear meet WP:GEOLAND and has no WP:SIGCOV. – Meena • 18:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be legally recognized in the sense of having census data per WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Terrible article, but does appear to be a recognised settlement, so meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 6 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 Leinster Senior Hurling Championship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Leinster Senior Hurling Championship[edit]

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

Far WP:TOOSOON. There are brief mentions of the tournament in sources, but nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. – Meena • 18:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leinster Senior Hurling Championship? It is less than a year away and will soon be created again. --Gaois (talk) 18:40, 7 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!} 18:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Finnish ice hockey players[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NLIST; surely better as a category. – Meena • 18:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Judging from Category:Finnish ice hockey players by position, Wikipedia must have over 1,000 articles about Finnish hockey players, which suggests that this list would be unmanageable. While Finland is one of the top countries in the world for ice hockey, I note that we don't have articles such as List of Canadian ice hockey players, List of Russian ice hockey players, List of Swedish ice hockey players, List of American ice hockey players, or List of Czech ice hockey players, to cover several of the other hockey powers, and so we don't need this one either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed; we have categories for this, and a list article would be wholly unmanageable. Ravenswing 22:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this can be handled by a category, it is too broad a category to create a sustainable list on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better handled as a category. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elin Skantze[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ATHLETE; athlete is not Junior World Champion in an individual discipline, as an orienteering relay has three members- does not pass Orienteering notability. Subject has not received coverage. Page has not been edited since creation in 2009. Spiralwidget (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete limited coverage in local press, mentioned by name only in a handful of national newspapers. Fails GNG. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Draken Bowser. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Trubkina[edit]

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

does not pass WP:ATHLETE, as an orienteer that has not achieved notability as set out in orienteering section (only a BRONZE medal at Junior World Championships and is required to be GOLD to pass notability). No significant coverage beyond that given to any international orienteer (i.e. profile on several websites, but no news coverage). No important content on page. Would recommend deletion. Spiralwidget (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG.Alimovvarsu (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhupendra Budhathoki[edit]

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

Fails WP:MIN. Awards won are not major awards. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 16:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nepal. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 16:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet WP:COMPOSER. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not Notable Proton Dental (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the article addresses general notability or musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. We could also send this to draft. Bruxton (talk) 03:56, 6 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. Consensus that it meets WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Walker Town, California[edit]

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

Notability not proven. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GEOLAND. See:

[25] - "A settlement sprang up at the mine, known as Joe Walker Town. There were at least 100 men connected in some way to the mine. Twelve of these men had their families with them. A boarding house was needed to feed the single men".
[26] - "A sizeable settlement sprang up around the mine, known as Joe Walker Town. More than a dozen families comprised the burg, plus at least 100 single men from the mine." Magnolia677 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The town was a substantial settlement that grew up around mining operations there. At least one source (which I have added as further reading) gives a detailed history of the mining there which will allow the page to be expanded for that if nothing else. Settlements that are not legally recognised (and has it been established that this town was not legally recognised?) are usually local names for neighbourhoods of a larger town and are merged up to the next highest level. That is not the case here, it is a definite, stand-alone town with no major settlements for many miles. Nor is it just a farm or small group of holiday homes (also common reasons for nominating alleged settlements). Google maps shows there are still buildings at the site with parked vehicles, so I am not entirely convinced by the claim that it no longer exists. That would not be a valid reeason for deletion in any case – once natable, always notable. SpinningSpark 08:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND notability proven per Magnolia677's sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- if reliable sources exist talking about this place's notability as a settlement, it existed enough for us to have an article about it (even if it's not a 100kb banger of an article). jp×g 05:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been a recognised settlement, so meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 6 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!} 04:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Muzaffargarh[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:NLIST. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of List-related deletion discussions. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a valid list, listing places in a location, many with their own articles blue linked to. Dream Focus 18:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list contains many WP pages links and still expanding. I will add more WP pages in this list in future.-Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has improved. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a reasonable navigational page under WP:NLIST.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 2 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!} 23:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blackslough Wood[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a hamlet, this indicates it is a forest. Other sources are maps like this or this which don't support the hamlet claims either (and certainly in the second case wouldn't be a reliable source anyway). This one at least has the name, but no indication that it is anything but a small forest. This and this unreliable source again does nothing to support the claims. Nothing better found online. And creator has a history of producing articles based on thin air (writing a whole article about a random name on a map or in a list). Fram (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Fram (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For much the same reasons I have added Aaron's Hill, Somerset to this nomination. Same creator, located right next to Blackslough, and extremely confusing as written: "Aaron's hill is located in a very rural area and is appropriately located upon a hill which is elevated 231 metres above sea level but Aaron's Hill itself is elevated 218 metes above sea level and has 28 metres of prominence." Perhaps an article for this hill can be made, but WP:TNT, better to simply start from scratch then. Fram (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram "Aaron's hill is located in a very rural area and is appropriately located upon a hill which is elevated 231 metres above sea level but Aaron's Hill itself is elevated 218 metes above sea level and has 28 metres of prominence." Ok I admit that's bad wording I admit but as you stated that can be WP:TNTed why propose the article for deletion? It's a quick fix why not just do it? N1TH Music (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"TNT" is deletion. I see now that you claim that there are two things, a hill (true) and a hamlet, for which you provide an elevation and so on. Source for the hamlet's existence, elevation, ...? Maps which show a forest. Fram (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"TNT" is deletion. I thought TNT was rewrite but preserve the old revisions for public viewing. Anyway OS recognises the hamlet as a hamlet which I though was a source as it shows the text "Aaron's Hill" in the text reserved only for settlements and actually so is Blackslough wood. here Infact thats why I made the articles for these. Aaron's hill was the first term on that list of places in the UK list which I thought had been reviewed and trusted, while Blackslough wood appeared to be a settlement right next to it. Also this streetmap here lists it in Black text which means settlement. But then Blackslough wood is listed in Green test to dignify a wood. So all sources point to it to being a settlement Ordnance Survery, Streetmap even wikipedia itself. You could see it on the list at the very top with the exact coordinates and OS grid references, unlike Backslough Wood and at the time I was certain that was trustworthy but what do you know that's also where I found Abellio. N1TH Music (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram first of all I forgot to tag you in the message above please read that before you continue. I think I got more eveidence as This states what language the "people" of Aaron's hill talk in which implies it is or up until recently was populated N1TH Music (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure then, Blackslough wood is nothing more than a wood. Even though this shows that there is some sort of buildings or fencing of sorts at the very minimum. According to WP:Geoland, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." Blackslough Wood fits this criteria as there is some sort of detail concerning the paths and trails which run through the area, if you believe that therefore this is not enough information then the article can be expanded or also redirected to Wincanton or Aaron's Hill, Somerset. N1TH Music (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence of a hamlet or similar, Geogeaph search doesn't return it as a settlement and searching images only returns pictures of the wood and the Google Maps source also says "Woods" after the title. The question is if the wood is notable but it doesn't seem like a hamlet exists by this name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Apparently a small forested area but no indication of notability or substance. Sources just synthesize information found on maps like what's in the vicinity. Reywas92^Talk 14:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I can't find no evidence at all that there is a hamlet at these locations. I don't understand the author's point about the OS using the text they reserve for settlements: here is the OS location they presented for Aaron's Hill, and here is the OS location for Ben Nevis, using the same text. There is no hamlet on top Ben Nevis. Google Earth shows nothing at Aaron's Hill or Blackslough Woods but trees and woodland tracks - no buildings of any kind. 'wikiedit.org' having a link for it means nothing whatsoever - that information is being scraped from a database somewhere by a machine, there's no reason to believe it is accurate in any way (or has ever even been looked at by a human until this discussion started). The photograph from geograph.co.uk shows... a woodland track, with a gate, and some waymarkers for walkers. Exactly the sort of thing you would expect to see in attractive bits of countryside - which is what these are, not settlements of any kind. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and to address the GEOLAND argument - we need reliable sources giving the subjects significant coverage to make them notable, not just a map that shows they exist. Lots of hills and woods are undoubtedly notable - there is no shortage of sources discussing Ben Nevis or Sherwood Forest, there would be no question there, but not every little bump on the ground or clump of trees that makes it onto an OS map gets written about. If anyone finds some decent guidebooks of the area that actually describe the hill or the wood in detail, that would be a different matter. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that notabiliy could be established for at least one of these places if better sources are found? N1TH Music (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability can be established for just about anything if good sources are found. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was clearly a place where people lived. I don't understand why people are citing contemporary maps and photographs to support the absence of a hamlet. Notability is not temporary, so historical sources need to be consulted. Old OS maps clearly show buildings around that location (e.g. [27]), and a search of census records and historical newspapers (e.g. via [28]) reveals numerous mentions of people "from Blackslough" or "of Blackslough" (also Black Slough). In its Friday 15 July 1898 edition the Somerset Standard even announces that a postal service to Blackslough from South Brenham will commence. It's then an easy step to search Victoria County History and discover that "Blackslough" refers to a gamekeeper's lodge, which was the residue of the Four Towers Estate. Plenty here for an article on this area if someone is keen to write it, but maybe starting over and a title change is warranted: ([29], [30]). ----Pontificalibus 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So saying maybe the article could be renamed Blackslough and instead of being referred to as a Hamlet or Forest should be a lost settlement. Like Muscott? N1TH Music (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm saying if you want to write about this area you either need to demonstrate that "Blackslough" satisfies WP:GEOLAND, or else you need to demonstrate that it, or some other area incorporating it, satisfies WP:GNG. Brewham certainly does, so perhaps a merge to there is warranted. Four Towers Estate might also satisfy GNG.----Pontificalibus 11:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding information about these hamlets to the local parish they are a part of or the local postcode area. Or is Brewham the local parish? N1TH Music (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ATD a,d WP:GEOLAND ("information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it") to Brewham per [31]. Perhaps everyone arguing for delete above ought to reconsider why a merge is not appropriate.----Pontificalibus 11:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Blackslough Wood is a Hamlet and Farmstead near Wincanton in Somerset in the west of England. Blackslough wood is located on the incline up towards Aaron's Hill and is elevated 176 metres above sea level. Blackslough wood consists of a few small buildings on a gravel path surrounded by woods. Blackslough wood is also located at the mouth of a small brook" has nothing I see as useful to merge, and none of the sources was worth merging either. The intro has now been changed to say it's a wood, which is at least one error less, but still hardly merge-material. Worse, the article claims that it is in Charlton Musgrove, not in Brewham, so why should we merge it there? Fram (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Well it's nearby and it beats deletion. And Pontificalibus showed that there is some sort of notability to the 2 places as there used to be homes there. I understand your concerns over location but Brewham could have a new section added which could add information about all the nearby settlements which weren't notable enough to warrant their own article. There are many solutions which wouldn't enforce the complete deletion of those 2 pages and I agree with the reasoning above but I understand I am not very knowledgeable in this subject. N1TH Music (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Well, the Brewham article currently contains no information about the geography of the parish. Simply adding the fact that it contains Blackslough Wood to the east would be a start, although there's plenty more content that could be added based on the sources I have linked.----Pontificalibus 07:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that it is in Brewham, or in Charlton Musgrove, or in both, or in others. It is a wood, it stretches across quite a bit of land, and has no clear boundaries from good sources. So it seems to me that, unless you have good sources for it (not just maps), merging it to either parish or to other articles is just a very poor decision. Fram (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This local government source listing sites of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance places it in Brewham, but it's true that it does extend across the parish and also county boundary, as detailed in this RS published by the parish council. The fact it spans multiple parishes is connected to its history as being partly ex-parochial, as detailed here. None of this precludes it being mentioned in the most appropriate area article and a redirect from this title being made. The fact a topic might be mentioned in more than one article does not prevent a merge being made. Likewise, disagreement on the most appropriate merge target should not lead to deletion.----Pontificalibus 06:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very WP:UNDUE to me, merging a poor article because one or two sources mention it in passing. If no one else thought it worthy of even some sentences of attention, then we shouldn't be the first to do so. Fram (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram Well somebody could add information to Brewham or Charlton Munsgrove if we discussed exactly what to do. Also the settlement of Blackslough is in one location only. The wood is large not the former farm house. N1TH Music (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the mythical "settlement", also known as one house or farm. Yes, let's catalogue every farm the world ever had. ~There is nothing in the Blackslough article worth merging. If people want to write something about Blackslough in another article, with actual sources which discuss Blackslough (and not just mention it or show it on a map), then they can do so if warranted. As we don't have any such source in the article that is up for AfD, there is no reason to keep it or merge it. Fram (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Pontificalihus stated that there were many old maps sand sources shiwing that there were infant inhabited buildings there. There must be so sources. Also according to WP:Geoland, of you can find sources to back the existence of a populated or formerly populated place, then it is notable enough. So if sources are found we could catalog every farm in the country. But realistically there aren't may sources for most of those places and it’d be a waste of time. But an article has already been created, if better sources are found it’s work keeping or redirecting and I think he’s found a few sources. N1TH Music (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND is about "Populated, legally recognized places", not about any named building or group of buildings. Fram (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know but it’s also about abandoned settlements if enough information and sources can be found. I agree that there most likely ins’t enough information on Blackslough for a standalone article but I am confident there is enough for a section in Brewham. N1TH Music (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, the "enough sources" to even verify (never mind say something useful) that an abandoned settlement called Blackslough existed in the parish of Brewham in the first place. Fram (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Brewham, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 27. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron's Hill does not seem to have been randomly added to List of United Kingdom locations: Aa-Ak but only appears to be a feature not a settlement[32]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both existing as a map label isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. I'd support a merge if there was sufficient sourced content to add to Brewham other than mentioning that these labels exist and are nearby Brewham. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork of Isaac Mendez[edit]

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

No evidence of this meeting stand-alone notability, a plot summary of a niche element of the Heroes-universe. A related article, Isaac Mendez, is now at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Mendez). If it survives, which is doubtful, this could be merged there, otherwise, it should simply be deleted, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly supported by official primary sources. No interest to anyone outside the fandom. Not worthy of its own article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only portion of the article that isn't just in-universe plot summaries is the small "Production" section, and that section is only sourced to a single interview with the real-life artist who created them, and a press release from NBC. Trying to search for more significant coverage of the topic comes up with mentions of the concept in overall discussions of the plot of Heroes, or mentioned as something that Tim Sale (artist) created, but no in-depth coverage specifically on the artwork itself that would pass the WP:GNG. At best, it could be perhaps used as a redirect to Tim Sale (artist)#Career, where the real-life production of the art is very briefly mentioned, but I don't personally feel like this phrase would be a likely enough search term for that to be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Will defer to others regarding the Isaac Mendez article, but this seems like a really obvious redirect based on WP:FICT and WP:NOPAGE if nothing else. Possibly a very selective Merge beforehand. Of course, if that article is deleted, then this one should be, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Isaac Mendez, a redirect isn't needed because searchers are going to search for Isaac Mendez, not artwork of Isaac Mendez, or if they do, most search engines will find it anyway. Jacona (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. Azuredivay (talk) 05:51, 5 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!} 04:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BB02[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, sources are interviews, passing mention. Article created as a redirect of Big Brother Series Two in Australia back in 2006 now repurposed to this. Not notable as a singer, songwriter or record company executive - no charts, no significant coverage. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:SINGER and WP:BASIC as the subject has clearly "[h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." For instance, [33], [34], [35] [36] Ei'eke (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per sources found by Ei'eke. Best, RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 08:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV per the independent sources identified above which address the subject "directly and in detail".4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SINGER per the sources identified. Kaizenify (talk) 07:01, 3 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. Sole/main contributor to the article is OK with this being made into a draft, so no need to have this go through a full AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, you may want to add a few sentences about this into Harris's article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ploughmen[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFF as all sources are about casting and film starting production, but the production hasn't been proven to be notable. Should be deleted or moved to draft until release. The Film Creator (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree as page creator. It has been over a year since anything about the film has been put out there and the material we have at present is not strong enough for mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 16:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: I'm just going to move this into your userspace. You're pretty much the sole editor, so I don't anticipate anyone objecting. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual historical figures[edit]

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

This list has a very subjective inclusion criterion and would thus seem impossible to accurately reference with any reliable source. Fails WP:LISTN and possibly WP:NOR by the nature of this classification. ComplexRational (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and History. ComplexRational (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Note that this is a mainspace version of Draft:American Oddballs by the same editor.) Article cites no reliable sources, and relies almost entirely on the "Sam O'Nella" youtube channel. The article title provides a vague scope that is subjective, as the nom points out, and non-encyclopedic. It might be appropriate for a clickbait article on a blog but not Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list is all based off of the series of YouTube videos that are cited. I would recommend watching them, as they're really hilarious, but this article is just complete junk. Easily fails WP:NOR, and can never be an encyclopedic list due to the subjective nature of the scope. Curbon7 (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:A1, no criteria and not even based on objectively unusual things (i.e. only head of state of X, unusual deaths, people with extremely rare conditions etc.) Dronebogus (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to assume that this wasn't created in good faith, but it is a list without any proper WP:LISTCRITERIA—which are supposed to be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources—and I don't see that as being possible to remedy. To put it another way, there's a reason WP:Unusual articles (where several of these people are listed) is not in article space. TompaDompa (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per nom. Most (practically all?) notable people are unusual. That's a really low bar for inclusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge back)-- We appear to have an article on each of the 5 men, and nothing obviously links them except that an editor thought them unusual. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; all of the content here seems to also be present (in much more encyclopedic and thoroughly-cited form) in the main articles on the figures mentioned. Even as a general subject apart from the currently existing article, it is impossible to imagine what objective inclusion criteria for this page would look like. jp×g 04:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list without defined inclusion criteria. Sourced mostly to a YouTube channel. JIP | Talk 08:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no clear reason to tie these people together as a group, especially just these people and not others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Maybe a list of historical figures who qualify a certain notable benchmark is acceptable, but definitely not this. OP to consider the same, whilst ensuring no addition of original research as already mentioned above. Out of scope for enWP. MxYamato (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kowdoor Nayarbettu[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation. No evidence of notability. Not clear whether it is supposed to be about a family or their house, but in either case this is not an encyclopedic article. Tagged as unsourced since 2013 and for notability since 2015: time for action. Googling finds nothing beyond mirrors of this article. PamD 15:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. PamD 15:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would guess it is about the family, but no WP:RS found. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything but Wikipedia mirrors. Perhaps it is misspelled and I don't know enough about the language to suggest a correction. As it is it fails WP:V and therefore shouldn't be included here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Engler[edit]

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

Non-notable curler; no sources via Google, Google Books, or Google News; source in article seems to be deprecated. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing here is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Nurse[edit]

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

Per WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent sources BOVINEBOY2008 14:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film exists, but hasn't received coverage in places Wikipedia would see as notability giving RS. The release date also looks like it may be a hoax. I've done a quick search of the Galaxy Theatre in Las Vegas and it doesn't show where this film is showing, let alone that it's sold out. It's entirely possible that the theatre was privately rented in which case it would be technically sold out since all of the seats were sold when the theatre was reserved, I suppose. This can be recreated if/when it gains the necessary coverage to establish notability but for now it's at best WP:TOOSOON for an article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Galaxy theater release was in fact a rental for a test screening and I was unable to attend due to tickets being sold out. Some tickets were free and some were paid. My understanding was about 50/50 since cast and crew were allowed in for free with guests. I did receive an online screener 2 days ago of the film as part of a festival submission. I also attended the Arizona screening but was late arriving. The film has now started to show up on notable review and streaming sites such as Film Threat. I will likely screen it at the first year of the Vegas Horror Show which is my festival. I have known the director off and on for many years since I managed a band he was in back in 2007, but we are not close friends and haven't been in any business together in 15 years and even then he briefly joined a band I was already managing. I also managed Parris Mitchell Mayhew, also a filmmaker, around the same time, but for some reason his page I created was deleted. Scream Corps was a webzine that focused on musicians/filmmakers in 2008-2010. If we are to delete, should I re-add when more coverage begins? That's what I waited for this time. For the release date being a hoax, I can't answer to that. I don't know what the release date was supposed to be but I do know when the first public screening was because I tried to attend it. ScreamCorps (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maa Shakti (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOE. Coverage in given sources is not significant; can't find significant coverage online, though I may have missed something. The most damning part for me, though, is that I can't find significant coverage dating from after 2002, when this series concluded. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable as doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:TVSERIES. Even the cited sources are mostly passing mentions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom – robertsky (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. Ravensfire (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikram Ali Malik[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for government bureaucrats. The role here is not an "inherently" notable one that would guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia just because he exists, so his includability depends on getting him over WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but there's only one footnote here, which isn't enough, and the article's been flagged for that problem for seven years without ever being improved at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 17:39, 2 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) Kj cheetham (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chenab Times[edit]

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

This article have non reliable resource as per claim the subject is not enough notable these references are just passing mention.To stand alone article on wikipedia please add some reliable and independent sources or participate in the discussion Maihuwikieditor (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Maihuwikieditor (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Removal of Afd template from the article is worsening this nomination for deletion. Jijisipu (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jijisipu has been on the Wikipedia for over a year and they've so far participated in only one AfD and it's this! Interestingly, all of their edits are from 1 July 2022. This makes their account suspicious. @MER-C Would you like to have a look at this please? They've made about 570+ edits in last three days. They become active on 1 July and !vote delete in this AfD just on the next day. The IP address that removed the AfD tag should be checked also whether it is connected here as well. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thamesinfotech. MER-C 01:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and procedurally speedy close for this being a bad faith nomination. Articles about this news website in Scroll and The Wire are not passing mentions. They are both independent and reliable and significantly discuss the Chenab Times. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TheAafi is connected with this site outside wikipedia so I think they should not involve in this deletion discussion per this. Thank you. Jijisipu (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I created this page under WikiProject Chenab Valley and submitted for AfC after it satisfied me that it pass the notability criteria. The subject is well discussed by Frontline (magazine), Scroll and The Wire sources which are independent and reliable. So, I believe it should be kept. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 10:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources, already in article. Meets GNG. Why are these socks popping up and casting mostly irrelevant aspersions? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weird nomination and one that doesn't seem based in policy. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:13, 7 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. Sources provided in the discussion were seen as significant. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne J. Kitany[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for government bureaucrats. The notability claim here is that she was chief of staff to a deputy president, which could get her an article if she could be shown to pass WP:GNG on her sourcing but is not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee inclusion without GNG-worthy sourcing -- but the only footnote here is her "staff" profile on the self-published website of the deputy president's office itself, which is not a notability-assisting source. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Kenya. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the chief of staff is not so significant. However she has received very significant coverage after this, see: Twice divorced: Marianne Kitany's lessons on marriage, dating (2022), Marianne Kitany: Estranged Senator Linturi's wife tells couples to avoid divorce at all costs Read more: https://www.tuko.co.ke/379035-marianne-kitany-estranged-senator-linturis-wife-tells-couples-avoid-divorce-costs.html (2020), Linturi had sex with me willingly, says Kitany (2019), Marianne Kitany tells court she housed Linturi after he defaulted on rent (2019), Kitany Shamed at Linturi's Father's Burial (2019), I will attend my father in law's burial -Kitany (2019), Meet nun-turned-lawyer defending Kitany in divorce case (2019), Kitany: I was a millionaire before my life with Linturi (2019), 'I was exposed to STDs' Linturi's wife Kitany says in divorce papers (2018). She is also back into politics now.--Chuka Chief_talk 16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - searching with the "J" gave nothing really, but without the "J" I turned up significant coverage in reliable sources over a number of years, per the links given by Chuka Chief above. Mujinga (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus Zaka Gaza[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for government bureaucrats. There are no roles listed here that would pass WP:NPOL as "inherently" notable ones, so getting him into Wikipedia would depend on sourcing him over WP:GNG, but the footnotes here are a mix of primary sources, very short blurbs announcing his hiring for roles but not offering any analysis of the impact of his work in said roles, and dead links whose content is unrecoverable. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a career civil servant with routine announcements of his appointment. No in depth coverage in RIS found. Mccapra (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:GNG and NPOL. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 13:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his roles don't carry inherent notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hélène Gosselin[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a retired government bureaucrat, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for non-elected government officials. There are no "inherently" notable roles listed here for the purposes of exempting her from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourceability -- but the only "referencing" present here at all is her "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of the government departments she used to work for, which are not notability-building sourcing.
As always, the notability test for civil servants is not "can be verified as existing", it's "has received a significant volume of GNG-worthy media coverage about her work to establish its significance", and there's no evidence of that being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I as surprised how common this name is but I can’t see in depth coverage in RIS for this person. Mccapra (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we clearly do not have enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Badelko[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG from the sources provided in the article nor in Belarusian Wikipedia. A Russian Google News search and a Belarusian Google News search both failed to yield a hit. This Russian search only gives us basic stats databases. No significant coverage found. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 5 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 12:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Khedekar[edit]

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG, and there is virtually no in-depth coverage of her in independent PravinGanechari (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Gnews comes up with a police inspector of the same name. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 5 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} 14:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalateh-ye Qannadan (32°45′ N 59°21′ E), Birjand[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Of the two references on the articles, the first is unreliable per WP:GEOLAND. The census data is in Persian, but can't verify anything from it as I don't know Persian. Gonnym notes at Talk:Kalateh-ye Qannadan (32°45′ N 59°21′ E), Birjand#Requested move 3 June 2022 "I'd be very surprised if there are two villages with the same name very close to one another." based on coordinate data. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The appropriate guideline would be WP:GEOLAND, not WP:GNG. But many of this author's other creations have also been harmful and largely false (articles on "towns" that were actually farms, agricultural centers, businesses, wells, and factories). I wouldn't be shocked if this was another example of such negligence, as I doubt there just happens to be two towns with the same exact name so close to each other. --VersaceSpace 🌃 18:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A google translate of the article title tells me this is a "confectionery", so basically, a candy shop. This serves as further proof of the author's total sloppiness when it comes to verifying the existence of these places. I have no faith in the other tens of thousands of stubs this creator has made over the years. If it was up to me, I would delete all of this user's articles where he is the only contributor. When you make articles on villages called Iran Engineerging Company and Fars Integrated Meat Factory, the community should not have to individually deal with all of your articles. It's just too much. --VersaceSpace 🌃 18:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's possible that the location is named something related to candy shop/confectioneries Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another stub by this editor about a location that is not notable at best and nonexistent at worst. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is there is probably not a village, WP:TNT. VersaceSpace, you're aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Large batch deletion probably needed? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Jazz, I am. --VersaceSpace 🌃 15:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is a mass deletion of Iranian abadis or something similar, maybe a discussion on some venue, going on at the English Wikipedia? I received a thank for one of my old contributions over Carlossuarez46's mess a few days ago, and a few moments ago, I was pinged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagh-e Latifan and now I see this. As the user who got thousands of Iranian abadis deleted, I would like to ask you wait for a few more months. There may be finally a way to distinguish Iranian real villages from non-real ones. You can't look at the name of the abadis and say this is just a confectionery! This is definitely not a confectionery. It's like saying Smith, Alberta is just a blacksmith workshop, because it contains the word smith in its name! 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to a hamlet in Alberta doesn't make sense to me. In these cases the name of the "hamlets" are very non-specific. Since we're using english examples, this creator has made tons upon tons of articles like 18 Mile House, California and Biola Junction, California (now a redirect), claimed "unincorporated communities". In Persian, the examples are even worse, and translations have turned up gas stations, factories, even slaughterhouses (would anyone name a town after this?), which is why I had no doubts about this being a confectionary. --VersaceSpace 🌃 15:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your case, but sometimes names can be really weird. Imagine having a hamlet named La Mort aux Juifs ('Death to Jews'). So it wouldn't be impossible to have a confectionery-named village either. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be impossible, but these are the exception and absolutely not the norm. If it was one or two, I'd take that stance, but there's literally hundreds of these "non-villages", so I can't in good conscience agree that this is the case. --VersaceSpace 🌃 17:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is generally true: there are many many Iranian non-villages at the English Wikipedia created by User:Carlossuarez46. But this article is not a good example. Qannadan (قنادان) does not mean a confectionery in Persian, but confectioners and it can also be just a family name. Kalateh (کلاته) is used for many villages. It roughly means a village or castle built on a mountain. Anyway, this definitely can't be a confectionery. Confectionery stores in Iran are only and only inside cities, not in the middle of nowhere. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be very surprised if there are two villages with the same name very close to one another. You would be more surprised to know there are THREE abadis with the same name at the same province, the same county, the same district, and the same rural district! Please note that I do NOT claim these are villages; I specifically use the word abadi which can be anything from a gas station in the middle of nowhere to a metropolis like Tehran. Wherever is not a ruin, is an abadi in Iran. Iran seriously suffers from lack of water, so you can't just find a place and live wherever you want; you need to deeply think about water all the time. See qanat).
- 128870: the population has not been reported for security and safety reasons. It means 3 or less than three families live here according to the latest census in 2016
- 133487: nobody lives here according to the latest census; it has been completely abandoned; population: zero.
- 132791: 12 people in 4 families live here according to the latest census.
Ctrl+ F: statistical codes of the abadis here to verify the above-mentioned information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:24, 3 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 11:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bahrain international footballers born outside Bahrain[edit]

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

not my field, but this seems like absurd overcoverage. The information can better go in the main article DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Bahrain. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dronebogus (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is borderline trivia. Pichpich (talk) 21:04, 6 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 11:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Globalance[edit]

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

basically promotional DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 2 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 11:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CARRO Group[edit]

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

entirely promotional DGG ( talk ) 10:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 2 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 11:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Heretics[edit]

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

the references are about the subject, not the book. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a review of the book in 1971 in Detroit Free Press (here, behind newspapers.com paywall. I finally broke down and got an account!); another review the same year in El Paso Herald-Post (here, again behind newspapers.com paywall); another in the San Bernardino County Sun, where it's called "the first anthology of its kind" (here); The Guardian (here); the Miami Herald (here); The Baltimore Sun (here); and the Courier-Post (here). Each of the reviews listed are solely about the book and not just passing mentions or listings of book sales. I also made sure each of the reviews above were not reprints; they are all separate and I believe most all have bylines. If any editors don't have a Newspapers account and wants confirmation on the bylines for each source, let me know.

This book easily passes NBOOK for me. The sources in the article right now simply need to be removed and the ones actually about the book incorporated. --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reviews identified by Kbabej. pburka (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an NBOOK pass per Kbabej's sources. As an aside, Kbabej, welcome to the Newspapers.com crew! It helps if you clip the article, mark them as public, and then link the clipping so editors without site accounts can see at least a low-quality version. Here are the clips:
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s great to know! Thank you, I’ll do that going forward! —Kbabej (talk) 17:59, 3 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. given work done on the article after nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tested.com[edit]

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

Created from a redirect, this article is by its own admission under the wrong title (it should be Adam Savage's Tested) but in any case refers to a website and business that fail WP:GNG - sourcing is mostly to reviews on the channel itself and anything beyond that is very thin soup indeed - and routine coverage at that. No indepth independent coverage at all. Also fails WP:WEB. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The title is a different discussion, since Tested.com is still used quite a bit in some of the sources I found, but definitely worth considering a title change if this doesn't get deleted. I did some searching and improvements just now to the article, here are the best sources I could currently find: Adam Savage on his live science show, cosplay, and ‘promoting the joy in making things’ WHAT’S IN YOUR BAG, ADAM SAVAGE? YouTube Millionaires: Tested’s “Huge Nerds” Build Gadgets, Audience Mythbuster Adam Savage Brings Evening Of Journeys, Virtual Reality To Castro Theatre. It seems that these sources back up the notability of the site/YouTube channel, though I will continue to search for more to try to strengthen my argument a bit. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources already in page. Not entirely sure why someone would nominate this, seems like a no hoper. Artw (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comment on whether current and mentioned sourcing satisfies notability criteria would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. it seems the main problem here is with 12 of the 27 references being from Tested (Adam Savage's Tested) to describe Tested's early history. (see paragraph 2 of History, ending at "...and 3D imagery and functionality.") this is something that a few sources should have described, in a paragraph or shorter text. since the sources are not independent of the subject, it may present itself as promotional or not notable. although i don't believe this is the case, as references from notable and independent sources like engadget, the verge, and variety are also present; however they almost act as passing mentions of Adam Savage's Tested with the way the references are presented in the article. if these same (or other) notable and independent sources could describe the core of what Adam Savage's Tested is, was, and/or will be, it would be subject for a wikipedia article. as it stands, the article does not warrant a separate wikipedia page.
.huepow^talk 23:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.huepow, I did a bit of work on the article, removing those sources, as well as adding some description from the existing stronger sources. I also added some of the Webby Awards Tested has won, which help with the second criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
looks good, Cerebral726. pretty sure this would be a keep now.
.huepow^talk 21:09, 5 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 Évora de Alcobaça. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combat of Évora de Alcobaça[edit]

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

Skirmish with only one known casualty. Can't find any significant sources online, though there shouldn't be; that said, if it's significant, we'd expect sources to exist in subsequent historiography. The only source given here is an entry in the Lisbon Gazette; being a contemporary source during the Peninsular War, we note this as routine and insignificant, as there is no further mention of it or analysis. The only other mention I can find of it is/are derived from the dispatches/notes of the Duke of Wellington, but there it is passing, routine, and vastly insignificant. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, France, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of what must have been thousands of such battles during the Napoleonic Wars Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the parish of Évora de Alcobaça, wher it happened (which I have just created). As Nick-D says this is likely just another smallish combat, not notable by itself; but it is most likely notable enough to be worth a mention within the context of the history of the parish where it happened. - Nabla (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) -- This can only have been a minor skirmish, from the numbers involved. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Évora de Alcobaça, per Nabla. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:57, 8 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 Authors of Plant Names. ✗plicit 08:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. E. Powell[edit]

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

Page author asserts notability to be derived from being a co-author of a plant name database. I show no hits on Google, Google Scholar, or JSTOR. Seems to fail WP:NACADEMIC. Even if there's an argument of GNG to be made, isn't being an author of a database, or, rather, a compiler, a bit of a stretch? Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. H-index of 1, no publications other than this co-authorship; does not meet general or special notability guidelines. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Authors_of_Plant_Names if we cannot find anything more about her (which I cannot). Elemimele (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a better idea. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Authors of Plant Names as others have said, doesn't seem to be notable enough for a standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Authors of Plant Names: fails WP:PROF as an individual. Gusfriend (talk) 04:46, 6 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!} 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Hundred (band)[edit]

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

This article seems to be trying to cover two different incarnations of the same band, but I don't think either of them is notable. I can't find any significant coverage of their original incarnation as the Four Hundred, and the only source in the article is a blog post. The Journal Sentinel article on Light Music is at least one source providing some semblance of significant coverage, but the other references either aren't independent of the band or aren't significant, and I couldn't find any additional ones. (All the links are dead now, but they're archived in the Internet Archive.) I just don't see this passing WP:BAND. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Wisconsin. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 18 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!} 06:01, 25 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!} 05:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of reliable sources found, no evidence of a possible WP:BAND pass. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As The Four Hundred they achieved nothing but a few minor blog mentions and low-on-the-bill festival gigs with more famous acts playing later. Therefore the article can be deleted under this name. However, after they broke up and some of the members regrouped as Light Music, that band received some pretty solid newspaper coverage in their city, e.g. [37], [38], [39]. Light Music might actually qualify for a WP article if anyone wants to create it, but that can be a separate endeavor some other time because they are two different bands with a few shared memebers. The article being discussed here is about The Four Hundred and they are not notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 8 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanne Wohlenberg[edit]

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

This article was created in 2012 with the edit summary saying: Page created - source IMDB. No sources have been added since in those ten years. Even if sourcing was added for the very little current info, they still seems unnotable by Wikipedia's standards for WP:BLP. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First hit is someone with the same name in Variety, that worked on Chernobyl and Vikings. Might be notable, I'd have to really look to confirm. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added citations to indicate her role in producing a mini-series, upcoming TV show, and Dr. Who episodes. Since the article is no longer solely sourced to IMDB, I removed that notice. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject meets the notability criteria by virtue of her producership of Doctor Who. Even if she had done no other work in television and film, this would be sufficient. Note there is an article for this specific job: List_of_Doctor_Who_producers DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is determined by sourcing and coverage by reliable sources not by actual credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She passes WP:CREATIVE criterion #3 in three times over note: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (emphasis mine) i.e. the things she made must get reviews, they all absolutely do. E.g. Wallander (British TV series), Chernobyl (miniseries), Doctor Who (WP:CREATIVE requires more than one episode, she did Doctor Who three times) all meet this criteria. CT55555 (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also she won an Emmy! I just added that in! That's a pass at WP:ANYBIO also. I think this must absolutely remove any doubt. CT55555 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 2 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 Ascension Island#Football. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension Island Football League[edit]

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

This appears to be an amateur soccer league that fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I have looked through google for "Ascension Island Football League" and "Ascension Island Championship" and have found no significant coverage. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, United Kingdom, and Islands. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice, why don't you delete Ascension Island and eradicate it's existence from wikipedia why you at it! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ascension Island clearly passes WP:NGEO, so I would not nominate it for deletion. There's a big difference between an island's notability and that of Ascension Island Football League, an amateur soccer league that appears to lack significant coverage. And, since it's an English language-speaking island, I really doubt that I'm missing something here. I've looked through archives of The Islander and it really doesn't give off an aura of reliability; its most recent edition, for example, looks and reads more like something an elementary school would distribute to parents than a publication by an established news organization. I've checked through the digital archives of the Saint Helena Sentinel, which seems to be better and have the trappings of a standard community newspaper. While I've learned a lot about golf and soccer on the Island of Saint Helena, I really don't see WP:SIGCOV in that newspaper of the Ascension Island Football League whatsoever when looking through those archives. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge - to Ascension Island#Football as possible search term. Giant Snowman 09:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a redirect. Given that the article I nominated for deletion is currently almost entirely based on statistical databases, I'd oppose a substantial merge of the two articles on the basis of this article's quality. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ascension Island#Football. I already merged some info there. There's just not enough coverage of the organization, besides games statistics, and a brief mention in an article [[40]]. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:57, 4 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 speedied G11/A7. Creator can work on the draft if desired, but will have to show some actual evidence of reliable sourcing to support notability before this can come back to mainspace. Bearcat (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Class Ache[edit]

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

This television show article has no references, and so fails both verifiability and notability. One copy of this article was already moved from article space to draft space by User:Mhawk10 as an alternative to deletion. That alternative is no longer available because the draft slot is now occupied. So this copy should be deleted, and the draft can be edited. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 1678[edit]

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

The article cannot be verified. The supposed Action of 1678 involved Cornelis Evertsen the Younger who had an encounter with François Louis Rousselet de Châteaurenault near Ushant. De Jonge´s History of Dutch Seafaring on p.645 gives an account of the voyage, see https://www.dbnl.org/arch/jong102gesc06_01/pag/jong102gesc06_01.pdf No action in the Strait of Gibraltar is mentioned. I think it is time to delete this article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, France, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creation of a proper article (if one can be written), but if the action happened, I would have expected it to have a name, not a year. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything either, so appears to fail WP:V per above. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced, and tells the reader nothing. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spreader bar (angling)[edit]

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

This topic is already covered in Trolling (fishing). This one sentence can easily be moved there if it is needed in the "spreaders" section of the article. Bruxton (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Redirect - really a dicdef, but could be redirected as above. Ingratis (talk) 05:15, 2 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!} 03:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uri de Beer[edit]

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

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, created by an SPA/paid editor with an interest in promoting this individual FASTILY 02:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A BEFORE search reveals user-submitted content, native advertising, social media, database listings, and the like. The article seems to be WP:PROMO and I don't think the artist meets our criteria for notability per WP:GNG. When an artist claims they are "famous" on their own website likely is not. The conflict of interest/paid editing is troubling as well. Netherzone (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have removed the puff and have added a few references. gidonb (talk) 10:35, 4 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) --VersaceSpace 🌃 04:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Guiney[edit]

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

All listed sources seem to be , not in-depth coverage about the subject. Googling the subject does not seem to bring up much better sources. I does not seem to pass WP:NCORP. Kitrsjlhf

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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what "Googling" was undertaken as part of WP:BEFORE, but the nom appears to have missed the subject's extended biography in the Dictionary of Irish Biography and other extended coverage in other biographical and national news sources (of which the subject is the primary topic). Which contribute to SIGCOV, even if we discount any number of various obits). The DIB entry alone swings it for me. As meeting criteria 3 of WP:ANYBIO ("has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary"). Mine is a very firm "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guliolopez. Passes WP:ANYBIO and sigcov is there. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guliolopez, etc. Easily passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV, including national bio. dictionary. One of the most famous Irish business figures of her time, and still well-known now. Online searches alone show much, and in addition, given time period, more in offline and closed archive sources. I suggest a swift end to this nom., perhaps withdraw? SeoR (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC) The relevance of NCORP is also unclear - this applies to multi-person entities ("an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose.") and neither individuals nor even families. SeoR (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable. National biographical dictionary for a start, then the obits in major national newspapers. PamD 07:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why WP:NCORP was mentioned, as she was a person, not a company. PamD 07:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no need to pass WP:NCORP, subject passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. —Natalie RicciNatalie 20:26, 3 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 Withdraw. The stupid XfD tool messed up the nomination. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Cilio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has really changed since the [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Cilio

Comment: The stupid tool cut out half my statement, give me a minute. Curbon7 (talk) 01:11, 2 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!} 23:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeep[edit]

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

Can't see any indication that WP:CORP is met SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find relialbe sources with significant coverage. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I found one not bad - the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2014/nov/21/didnt-have-choice-think-carefully-about-cash ArcticSnowWind (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article: [41], [42], [43], [44], etc. The reason given for deletion does not hold water. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every mention of a company on something that looks like a news source is good for WP:ORGCRIT. Of the sources mentioned in this AfD, only the guardian clearly meets the bar for source reliability, but the article isn't independent (it's an interview with the founder). As an imprint of the financial times, TNW might, but the TNW reference's situation re. notability establishment is even worse, since it's both dependent and a mention in a list. FalconK (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Routine coverage. Seems to be typical startup news and paid write-up in the Guardian. scope_creep^Talk 08:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Dubious about startups.co.uk. Thenextweb seems ok, although as it has the same picture as the last one it takes it down a bit, but this isn't PR generated the same way. The Guardian is an interview with little original content not originating from that interview, so fails ORGCRITE. Techcrunch is good, and is more than a routine announcement of fundraising, but provides some independent analysis. None of it is horribly in-depth except for the interview, so I come up with the equivalent of 1.5 sources, which may seem an odd analysis, so therefore this isn't a !vote, just thinking out loud. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm normally one of the biggest business articles supporters here, but the coverage isn't that great. Funding of $1M is relatively small, and a lot of the article is name dropping and not actually about the company itself. I initially considered calling it WP:TOOSOON, but they were founded 8 years ago. The founder Avin Rabheru was awarded an MBE. Not adverse to merging this into an article about him, where the sourcing requirement for including company info wouldn't be so high. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:43, 4 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. No reason as to how this meets LISTN has been put forward by the people advocating for keeping Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Czech Republic[edit]

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

Prod and Prod2 (the latter by me) removed with edit summary of Should be easy to source they appeared on the stamps. If incomplete, it needs completion, not deletion. No one has proven that any sources exist to indicate 1.) that entries like "mythological knight Bruncvík with his wife Neomenie" even exist, or 2.) that the subject of them being on stamps is worth cataloguing even if we can prove they exist. As with most of the others, this seems a clear WP:SALAT failure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Czech Republic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another of these postage stamp articles that fails WP:LISTN LibStar (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sorry if I'm coming in late to the game and everything I bring up has been discussed to death elsewhere already. Appearing on the postage stamp of a sovereign nation is a high indication of likely notability. Also, this can be easily sourced to a Scott catalog, or one of its competitors like Michel. I'm not saying this list should be kept, but isn't this information valuable somewhere, like a category (Category:People appearing on Postage Stamps of Burkina Faso), or, well, something. I realize that a category isn't really a solution because redlinks aren't allowed in categories, I'm just throwing the pasta on the wall and seeing if anything sticks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a catalog can confirm these people were on these stamps, no one has brought forth solid reasons why the subject of listing them is appropriate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not have adequte sourcing to pass our guidelines for lists. To respond to the above, appearing on a postage stamp is not at all an indication of notability. Some counties have put on postage stamps a picture of a gathering of 21 people, that does not indicate that all 21 people are important. The US postal service ran children's art competitions where the winner was put on a postage stamp, that did not make those people notable. Yes, most people who have been put on postage stamps were notable, but by no strech of the imagination have all of them been notable, and for most of those who have been pictured on stamps that fact is a trivial one that has no importance to their life or career and often not really to how they are memorialized. In fact on a few occasions the picture of the wrong person has been put on a postage stamp. Picturing people on postage stamps has meant different things in different countries at different times. This is something that could be addressed in the various Postage stamps and postal history of x country articles, but it does not need to be addressed by creating a comprehensive list of everyone who has ever been on every postage stamp in a giving country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that I do not think we even know the inclusion criticia? Is this meant to be limited to real people or not. It actually has on it someone described as a "mythological" knight. It has no sources. I have seen other lists that included James Bond, who everyone agrees is fictional. They actually did picture an actor playing James Bond, but they were not giving the actor per se any reogniztion, and were not honoring him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see some good reasons to keep the article above, and I don't see any reasons to delete it. It is not yet complete, but is there one article on WP that is complete? An article like this may be very welcome to certain philatelists. --Dick Bos (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completeness is not the issue. Verifiability and relevance are. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the other stamp-related article, there do not appear to be any sources that actually allow this to pass WP:LISTN. Simply verifying that the information is actually correct via a stamp catalogue would still not be adequate for establishing notability, as there needs to be actual coverage discussing the topic as a group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Like others, I also see good reasons why keeping the article would be helpful. I can't buy into the 'completeness' argument because under that criteria, we'd have to delete about 99% of the articles here. Wozal (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to keep things in persepctive, the article still has no sources, so I have no idea how anyone could even argue, minus sources, it is complete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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