Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 19	June 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Centre for Excellence[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 14:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Is there something better than what one scares up in sources? I get the school's own website and then typical, catalog listings, such as this one from the catalog of "Schools Affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education". Hindus, help! -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hemantha (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flo Chase[edit]

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

I don't find a lot about him. Doesnt seem notable enough FMSky (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. FMSky (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Full articles about him in American Songwriter and Atwood Magazine pretty much confirm notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:16, 14 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!} 23:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough coverage in the article at present to meet SIGCOV. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Uhatahi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played fifteen games for his country scoring one goal. Simione001 (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have a bevy of articles and significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:21, 16 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!} 23:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per @Simione001: and @Ortizesp:. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz: Simione001's reasoning is invalid. Ortizesp has not supplied evidence for their claim? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There is no significant coverage in the article and none has been presented here. Closing admin should not that participating in national team games is not enough the article to be kept per WP:NSPORT. Alvaldi (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing sources at best verify the player's participation, but as Alvaldi notes per the updated NSPORT that is not enough; from a GNG standpoint there's no sourcing that meets GNG, and Ortizesp has not provided any. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources used even come close to being significant in terms of coverage. Google News has some trivial mentions. ProQuest has nothing. DDG has nothing decent. Please ping me if someone is able to provide evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT. No evidence supporting the arguments made by the keep voters. 4meter4 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Uhatahi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources [1] and [2] about his coaching activities should be sufficient. EternalNomad (talk) 03:55, 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!} 23:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per @EternalNomad:. Also, he is Tonga national teams third highest international scorer of all time. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Neither source mentioned above goes into the subject in any detail and thus do not count as significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2022
Delete fails GNG. The sources mentioned (and a few others I found) mention Uhatani tangentially, not significantly as needed to demonstrate notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources above are classic examples of passing mentions which do not add up to a passing of WP:GNG. In my searches, I was unable to find any evidence of extensive, detailed coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT as the sources do not address the subject "directly and in detail" as required in our guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Vukotić[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or SNG. Article is basically resume type material. None of the references are independent in-depth coverage. The external links do have an interview with him from when he was a grad student. North8000 (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Montenegro. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some sources in Serbian(?) but they don't look notable, almost press releases.Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ванилица (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 13 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!} 23:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LinkedIn style profile with no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals as per point 4 of WP:Speedy keep(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kishen Das[edit]

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

~~All the coverages are about his film. Lack of in-depth coverages. Thus the subject is not meeting WP:GNG. Also the subject is written from fan point of view.Trakinwiki (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Trakinwiki (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This tag has be added by a relatively new user who created his account recently hopefully without going through the article references in deep. Most of the articles kept as reference in the article are from reputed newspapers including The Hindu , The Indian Express, Times of India etc and having the actors name in Title of the article as well. Mutiple factors of notabilty is proved and enough and more articles are furnished to pass WP:GNG very well. Jehowahyereh (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Those coverages are not in-depth coverages. So according to WP:GNG the subject is not meeting wikipedia criteria. Trakinwiki (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple references indicating notability. Proton Dental (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Those coverages are not in-depth coverages. So according to WP:GNG the subject is not meeting wikipedia criteria. Trakinwiki (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, nominator blocked as a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Doonan[edit]

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

The original creator of the article requested this be deleted with the rationale information about artist outdated and no longer accurate/relevant. Artist wishes for it to be removed for privacy reasons, and ordinarily I'd just speedy it as "author request". However as this has previously survived an AfD discussion, in this instance I feel speedy deletion would be potentially controversial. I strongly believe we should delete it; not only does the author of the only substantive content want it deleted, but I've no reason to doubt that the subject also wants it deleted and in the case of marginally-notable figures like this the default should be to defer to the subject's wishes. ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SIGCOV; coverage is mostly local. If there are major errors, WP:TNT applies.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The subject does pass criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO and is notable. However, the article requires a lot of work and has had multiple tags for many years. Given the request, I am inclined to delete this version of the article with no prejudice against recreation if someone chooses to develop a better article.4meter4 (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Curry[edit]

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

Non-notable business owner. Previously deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark E. Curry.

A local businessperson who seems to have been a business partner with American Web Loan. The coverage and this article is all about American Web Loan and their bad practices. It doesn't look like Curry's biography and given that his notability is already weak and all coverage is related to suitcase, so fails WP:BIO1E too. We should rather create a page about notable topic such as American Web Loan or event.

Fails WP:SIGCOV as nothing significant found which wholly describes Curry. William Ducke (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kansas. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and WP:SALT per WP:G4. This article is not meaningfully different from the first article, and is a re-creation of a deleted page.4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Rincon[edit]

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

There is no indication he meets the general notability guidelines. Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He made a bunch of films that has a bunch of reviews which therefore gives him a clear pass at WP:CREATIVE I think. CT55555 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's clear that Rincon doesn't pass the GNG: my search turned up nothing more than a few single-sentence mentions. Invoking WP:CREATIVE here seems like quite a stretch, in my view. For one thing, I doubt that Rincon "played a major role in co-creating" these films: while a director might qualify, one of nineteen executive producers does not. I also don't think that these films constitute "significant or well-known work" (a higher standard than notability). Notability under WP:CREATIVE requires more than minor roles on the production crews of a few films, I think, and given the lack of any sourcing that discusses Rincon or his work, he doesn't seem to be notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 20 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!} 23:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor roles in the production team of films. As such, it would be hard to argue that he had a significant enough contribution to the reviews in evidence to qualify for criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE. Further, with zero sources addressing the subject "directly and in detail", I think this article is a bit of a stretch. Further, the subject has not been working very long so this is probably WP:TOOSOON per WP:SUSTAINED. 4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Codesh School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing of note comes up online about the subject. And the text, as already pointed out by CorenSearchBot, copies the school website's About Us section, which makes the article essentially a promotional brochure. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion, previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CODESH School
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 2014 decision to Keep the article was based on the now-amended WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -The Gnome (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t find anything to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate sources, atleast on internet. Fails the notability and WP:GNG.Jimandjam (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelrahman Juma[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page; in any case, not independent. Had difficulty finding even database entries online; only one I could find was a mention from Transfermarkt. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 23:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Millat Times[edit]

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

Sources available in the article do not demonstrate that notability criteria is passed. BEFORE search reveals nothing good. Nothing substantial exists that would help this news portal pass WP:GNG. The relevant subjective criteria isn't also met. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 14:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 14:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 01:34, 16 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!} 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article doesn't seem to be notable. I can see 1 or 2 references showing little notability, but most of the references are passing mentions and some tweets from Twitter. So, it doesn't even pass WP:GNG. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berachampa Deulia Uchcha Vidyalaya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Existing is not enough any more and notability must be proven. The Banner talk 13:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it passes some, but not enough, of my factors for school notability. Other than one program, the stub doesn't explain what makes this school notable. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 20 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!} 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete - notability factors missing Proton Dental (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Al-Hajaji[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Closest significant sourcing is this, of which reliability I'm not sure how to evaluate; in any case, is not significant in the least. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cymer[edit]

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

Clearly advertorial article for a non-notable limited liability company, the few citations that have been scattered into the article are industry publications or commercial websites. Fails WP:NCORP, time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few quality sources on some of their products, but not on the company itself. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Bilal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Careful, when searching, not to confuse with Bilal Abdulrahman. Closest source is this, which is not independent or significant coverage. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Othman Al-Othman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Re online sources, could only find this, which seems to be of dubious reliability and, in any case, is not significant coverage (contract renewals are routine). Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Yazidi (footballer, born 2002)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Only database entries found. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Harees[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Iraq, and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fear Zero. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC) (originally closed as Redirect by 4meter4 but the templates weren't placed correctly so I reclosed it with the same result Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Ed Sadler[edit]

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

fail to see how Sadler is notable outside of his work with Fear Zero, all related coverage is in relation to that, so a standalone article doesn't make sense. Proposing a delete and redirect. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Praxidicae, I am afraid I have to disagree with your suggestion. Ed Sadler is the founder of the band Fear Zero. He was a member of other bands, and has collaborated with an extensive list of known artists outside of his band. I didn't have the time to add all the info today. Please keep in mind that this article is only a day old and not complete yet. It's a work in progress. You're welcome to add any additional info that you might find about this artist. Thanks. ~~~~ Ryzen2014 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ryzen2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

If its not complete enough to establish notability then it should be re-directed to the band and you can work on the standalone article in Draft at your own pace. By publishing and insisting it is notable, you are forcing other editors to review the article and make a decision. Slywriter (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Give me a couple of days and it should be notable enough. Ryzen2014 (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the way of coverage to be found in newspapers, magazines or books. Time won't change that. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Time won't change that." That's just rude, man. The guy is a legend, loads of people praise his songwriting, singing and guitar playing. Newspaper articles aren't always archived, that doesn't mean they weren't written. Again, give me a couple of days, ye of little faith. Ryzen2014 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs run for seven days, so you'll have your time. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Ryzen2014 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not enough in-depth significant coverage to establish notability separate from the band Slywriter (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fear Zero - it appears the coverage of the band is significant enough to convey notability, and everything that I see in the article right now is the subject's work in relation to the band. It makes more sense, if there's not enough about him but enough about the band, and if the subject is a potential search term, to bounce to the band. Some of the detail in this article could also be merged to the band article, potentially, to flesh that out. (Note that I removed a redirect from the band article to this one - let's leave both unredirected until this process is complete.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony Fox Why not! I'd be actually down to merge both articles, as long as one of the sections focuses on Ed Sadler's songwriting and musical projects outside of Fear Zero. Ryzen2014 (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fear Zero - much of the detail in this article is really about Fear Zero, and could be integrated into that article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we merge Ed Sadler with Fear Zero, then Ed Sadler deserves at least one or two sections in the Fear Zero page. Without him, the band would have never existed. It's his band. (http://www.pgfreepress.com/fear-zero-at-generator/) He wrote all the songs and co-produced them, and he chose the members of his band. It's like Tom Petty, and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. The two pages exist on wikipedia, dedicated separately to the solo artist and the band. Why not do the same in the present case? Ryzen2014 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are a vast number of independent, reliable sources that discuss Tom Petty in depth, while there are, as far as I can see, essentially none that do so for Sadler. I don't see a single independent source in the Sadler article that actually discusses Sadler in depth; they are all either about the band, or they are interviews, press releases and other non-independent sources.
You would be well advised to spend your time finding proper sources for Sadler, which is the only way to demonstrate notability, rather than responding to everyone who comments in this AFD. Doing so can be viewed as bludgeoning, which definitely does not make your case stronger. CodeTalker (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fear Zero. There is room in the article to also merge and then redirect. Bruxton (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fear Zero. The comparison to Tom Petty is ludicrous. Cullen328 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect I was AGFing until the Tom Petty comparison. It is clear the creator does not understand notability and given they're already bringing this to AN, appears unlikely they'd respect consensus. Star Mississippi 16:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Owens[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO basics, mostly a WP:BIO1E person only known for being a winner of a reality show, which generally fails GNG guidelines. Suggest redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 6) instead. SanAnMan (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Television, and Australia. SanAnMan (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it does not look like WP:BEFORE has been followed here - I hope this editor isn't just blindly nominating all Australian Masterchef winners. In fact, coverage of the subject has continued steady since the show concluded, indicating that WP:BIO1E does not apply: a very quick search turns up this article from Business Standard and this one from Verve (both from India) and this article from 2021. St Anselm (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep. One a group of Mass nominations largly based on a false premise, the claim of one event. egs Jackson was known for two series, 2014 and 2020. McKay is curently getting attention for the current season as well as the one she won. Cheliah also was in the current season. Chan is also a TV host with two seasons of a show titled with her name. Lazy nominations lacking any real before. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a general principle, I agree with the keep voters, but Owens doesn't seem to have done anything significant since winning the show. That seems to be a relatively rare case amongst MasterChef winners, who've usually gone on to stay in a public role in some context, but that others did doesn't render Owens notable beyond his series. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Keep per Duffbeerforme's sources about his television shows as long as they're added to the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't just disappear. [3] "And he has a cookbook, 'Dig In', out as well as several TV shows to his credit. By the way, he also shot his cooking show, 'Brent Owens: Extreme, Authentic & Unwrapped', in South Africa. He went on to do, 'Brent Owens Unwraps Mauritius'." [4] [5] duffbeerforme (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cookbook is irrelevant because a cookbook deal comes with winning Masterchef, but the two cooking shows you've cited reasonably establish notability in my view. It's a shame the current article completely ignores his main claim to continuing notability, because given that the TV shows don't show up prominently on Google it was just asking for a deletion nomination. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV with sources for both the competition win and his cooking show on television.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Gibson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. There is no consensus to delete, a reasonable argument for sources showing a unique basis for notability, and little likelihood that relisting will result in a different outcome, given additions to the article over the course of the discussion. BD2412 T 20:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Inia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did see a couple of hits under the name Ata Inia, but nothing that's significant coverage yet. Best source is probably [6]. I would have expected that being the first professional Tongan soccer player would generate more coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may go ahead and add a couple of facts and sources to the article so it's clear what the story is, but it appears he's never actually played for Tonga (on the national team), and there doesn't appear to be that much about his club performance to date (except for a long Q&A interview when he first arrived in Cambodia), so at best this looks like a candidate to draftify (rather than keep). When he started playing in Cambodia, the Tonga FA publicly congratulated him (thus accepting / confirming that he was the first Tongan to play professionally), but at the end of 2020 he was still in the process of applying for dual citizenship. (He's Australian.) So Matangi Tonga Online focuses on his background rather than on him as an athlete and some of this is probably TMI for a BLP. (Maybe there is more written in Khmer or Thai? Might be worth also posting to the applicable Deletion sorting project for football in Asia / SE Asia.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Australian who (unlike Inia) has actually played for Tonga but appears not to have been signed by any professional club to date is Mohammad Rajani (per Oceania Football). Cielquiparle (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In October 2021, FTBL.com.au had Ata Inia down as "an unused sub once for Angkor Tiger FC." Cielquiparle (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Side note is that this claim on FTBL.com.au is very likely false and misleading. Ata appeared and scored goals on July 12, 2021 (per Angkor Tiger FC on Facebook) and on November 13, 2021, and there could have been more (and the infobox suggests he had a total of 19 appearances although I'm not sure how we know that). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as Draft:Ata Inia rather than AJ Inia. So yes, there is coverage in national newspapers in Tonga and Cambodia about becoming Tonga's first professional footballer, but it seems like this is still a story that is waiting to happen since he hasn't quite started playing for Tonga yet. If there is additional coverage once he starts playing for Tonga, we'll be ready with a nice draft article. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there is sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 19:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I looked at the article and I think there is enough sources for WP:GNG and he is the first and only pro Tongan footballer ever. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable because he is the first Tongan pro footballer, and article is well-referenced. passes GNG. --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftfy. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The sources in the article are routine transfer news, primary sources or a Q&A interviews. Alvaldi (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Alvaldi.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I count 1 source in the article that is independent and significant. I'm not sure about reliable, but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Find 2 more like the first source listed and I will change to keep. Currently the only source that isn't either self-produced puffery or churn is the first source. I suppose draftification is acceptable. Rockphed (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Rockphed is referring to the article in Khmer Times as one article that is independent and significant enough. I would argue that the article in Matangi Tonga is also independent and significant, because it investigates the question, "OK, but what is Ata Inia's actual connection to Tonga?" For those who do not have a subscription to Matangi Tonga, a national newspaper in Tonga, the article outline is as follows:

Khmer Times is reporting that Ata Inia is "Tonga's first professional soccer player
Ata has joined Angkor Tiger in Cambodia after 2 years with Melbourne Knights in Australia
Angkor Tiger finished 7th in Cambodia's top league (this information doesn't appear in the other article)
The Tonga Football Association has publicly congratulated Ata
Ata's father's father was Tongan; his father's mother was Australian; he was named after his grandfather (this information appears in none of the other sources)
Ata really wants to play for Tonga, as verified with the manager of the Tonga national women's team
The national women's team manager confirmed that Tonga FA was in touch with Ata, but the reason he had not yet formally joined them yet was because he still had to sort out his dual citizenship issues

My hesitation with this is that both this article, the big English article in Khmer Times, and the one in the Khmer language (SBM News), are all focused on the 1 event of Inia's signing / transfer news (as noted by Alvadi). The entire section on his "International career" consists of: "I almost played for Australia U-23" and "I hope to play for Tonga someday"; so reads very much like WP:TOOSOON to me. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep OK fine, changing vote in light of the fact that there aren't that many athletes from Oceania who have this much focused coverage in multiple national publications; I guess he always will be "Tonga's first professional footballer". I hope he gets to play for Tonga someday. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also further expanded the section on Ata Inia's club career, citing 2 additional Khmer Times articles (which are not enough to establish notability but certainly do help to paint a more complete picture of how the 2021 season in Cambodia went for him). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as first Tongan football player. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as first football player from Tonga. I added one source. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability is established by in-depth national newspaper coverage in Cambodia (Khmer Times and SBM News) and in Tonga (Matangi Tonga). In this particular case, the reason for my initial hesitation was that all of this coverage focused mainly on 1 event, which was Inia's signing with Angkor Tiger, although it did also cover information about his family background, and past history as a player. However, the addition of two additional articles from Khmer Times, particularly the one covering Inia's first goal scored in Cambodia (13 July 2021), helps to overcome the possible WP:BLP1E issue; even if it is "routine game coverage", he features prominently in it and it establishes that he wasn't only "notable" on the day he signed with the club. Some of us may wish that Inia had actually played for the Tonga national men's team already, but that is arguably WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not a valid objection. Side note is that the Oceania Football Center blog post featuring an interview with Inia does not count toward notability and we don't even need to cite it given that it doesn't really add any new information, but I'm leaving it in for now, mainly because otherwise other people will keep adding it back in (I already removed it once before). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The khmertimeskh.com story covering his first goal scored in Cambodia briefly mentions him in two lines and does not constitute as a significant coverage. The "Tonga’s first professional footballer joins Angkor Tiger" story, also from khmertimeskh.com, is significant and the similar story from Matangi Tonga online might me, although its locked behind a paywall so I can't assess that. The SBM News source, outside of it not really being significant, constitutes mostly of comments from his coach so it is not independent of the subject either. All three stories are from a span of three days and such a brief bursts of news coverage that fails WP:SUSTAINED. In my opinion, the subject needs to been shown to have significant coverage over a longer period of time. Alvaldi (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that more "significant" coverage over a longer period of time would have been preferable. I agree that the "first goal in Cambodia" article in Khmer Times wouldn't count toward notability on its own, although I would also point out that it prominently features his photograph and caption. Another article I've just added from Star Weekly in Melbourne in 2019 with four sentences about Inia's performance during an otherwise routine match including speculation about his "bright future" plus a quote from his player-manager is also probably not significant enough to count toward notability on its own, but it is definitely more than just a passing mention. In aggregate, I think there is just enough evidence of "sustained" coverage (even if it's not all "significant" feature coverage for notability) to get this article over the line. For me this is why I'm finally OK with this as a "weak keep" after much initial hesitation. (Also, this has been an extremely challenging bio to research given all the different languages and geographies within Oceania and Asia which have to be searched separately; I'm surprised at how much more I find every time I look, and I have been looking for quite some time trying to get a clear answer.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samisoni Mafi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. No verifiable sources to ascertain notability Burberryjzk89 — Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semisi Otukolo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. If there are differing opinions on the correct redirect target, please start a talk page discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of December 24, 1916[edit]

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

Fails GNG: The eclipse only occurred in the Antarctica and its adjacent waters , and it is unlikely that anyone saw the eclipse at that time. Likewise, history does not record this eclipse, and this eclipse has no scientific value. Therefore, this eclipse is not of notability, and therefore the references in the entry do not prove notability, i.e., they do not constitute a valid introduction. Q28 (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Astronomy, and Antarctica. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a documented event, within a eclipse series, Solar Saros 111. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an astronomical database; and as can be seen solar eclipses happen frequently. The only source for this is an all-inclusive catalogue, which is well short of the WP:GNG required. it's a documented event, within a eclipse series is essentially WP:BUTITEXISTS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. Praemonitus (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (reluctantly). Many (all?) of the other 20th century partial solar eclipses seem to have their own articles, so I don't see why this one in particular should be given the boot.PopePompus (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly the point, which is that all such useless articles should go. There is nothing special about this one. Delete Athel cb (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:NOTDATABASE, strongly agreeing with RandomCanadian. The two 'keep' arguments here are two of the most notoriously poor types of arguments for keeping an article, namely that "it exists" and "what about [other article(s)]?" The fact that NASA can seemingly run back the clock and document every solar eclipse within the last 1000 years doesn't make any of them indivudally notable unless there are other factors at play like historical, cultural, or scientific relevance (as attested to by reliable, independent sources). Meanwhile, the argument that it should be kept because essentially all of these eclipses have their own articles is just nonsensical; WP:WAX has been thoroughly discredited as an argument for or against deletion, and in this case it sets up an absurd catch-22 wherein you can't delete this article because those other articles haven't been deleted and you can't delete those articles because the other articles like this one haven't been deleted. I was originally going to propose redirecting to Solar Saros 111, but there's no reason to have that much clutter in the search bar with hundreds of – what amount to – spam articles about solar eclipses. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You and RandomCanadian make a good argument. I'd be happy to see all articles on partial solar eclipses deleted. Is there anything that could make such an event notable? Should annular eclpses be declared non-notable too, unless they trigger a news-worth event? PopePompus (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. Most of this article isn't about the eclipse it claims to cover in particular, but about the sequence of eclipses in general – I don't think there's enough to write about in the case of this particular eclipse. (As the article says, this particular was only visible from close to Antarctica; there weren't likely to have been many people there in 1916, so it's possible that nobody saw it at all, and so we won't have anything to say about this eclipse that we can't say about eclipses generally.) As such, although the eclipse obviously occurred, it seems unlikely that there will ever be enough content for an article about this eclipse in particular (and it's telling that effectively no such content is present on the page). This is potentially different from eclipses which were seen in populated areas – those are more likely to have, e.g., newspaper coverage which makes it possible to document people's reactions to the eclipse, but that doesn't apply to this eclipse in particular.
Incidentally, it's quite telling that the redirect target has a list of six "notable eclipses of the 20th century", followed by a much longer list of eclipses that occurred. I suspect the correct solution is to have separate articles only about the notable eclipses, and to merge all the known information about the less notable ones into the list article. --ais523 22:05, 19 June 2022 (U T C)
Redirect to Solar Saros 111. Thats seems more informative than 21st c list. Slywriter (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like the consensus is between Deletion or Redirect/Merge with several potential targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century, not Solar Saros 111. Interestingly enough, this eclipse was the second to last of that cycle, but the former article still gives better context. For the best of both worlds, I think I'll indicate in the list article when particular eclipses were among the last in their Saros cycle. Perhaps an WP:NECLIPSE page should be created. :P Ovinus (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akoli Mafi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samisoni Maasi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Obhakhan[edit]

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

Non-notable politician that fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. He has only served as a commissioner in a Province/State for a ministry. Lacks WP:SIGCOV as well. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsuccessful political candidate and the state level commissioner roles in Nigeria are not inherently notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, is this just in Nigeria or universal? I mean, "the state level commissioner roles in Nigeria" reply with a ping RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 01:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reading a bit too much into that statement. State level commissioners in different countries with different political systems may be different. This was just pointing out that such a position in Nigeria doesn't, in the writer's opinion, grant notability. A role with this name may or may not grant notability elsewhere. I don't myself know whether this position means that the subject was a member of the state government, which does grant notability per WP:NPOL. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, the commissioners are part of the cabinet of a state government. And I was just on the fence due to the available sources there. RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 16:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that quite a lot of articles get created about state commissioners in Nigeria (possibly more than for any other country) and I recall a number of them being deleted at AfD so I think the consensus is that they are not default notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Uncontroversially fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the title of politician is up to snuff. Non-notable, not article worthy Gnomatique (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. And this entity held a state office as the commissioner for education. RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 01:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Commissioners are essentially state-level ministerial posts in Nigerian system. The posts are nominated by the state governor and their appointment is voted in the state legislature (https://www.pulse.ng/news/politics/oshiomhole-governor-appoints-new-commissioners/xx0wf03), https://newsday.com.ng/oshiomhole-nominates-uloko-obhakhan-as-commissioners/ ). See also https://www.marketdigestng.com/politics/obhakhan-reveals-why-obaseki-cannot-return-as-governor/ A puff piece, but in notable publications: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/05/gideon-obhakhan-a-man-in-a-class-of-his-own/ , Also note that there is a street named after Gideon Obhakhan in Lagos (https://www.efcc.gov.ng/news/7937-efcc-arrests-seven-suspected-internet-fraudsters-in-lagos) albeit that be after a relative? --Soman (talk) 23:24, 17 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!} 20:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NPOL per RB.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issa Kanoute[edit]

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

Only one professional appearance & comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable footballer which fails WP:GNG. I can't find any online coverage except the most trivial of coverage (an announcement that he signed a contract and a match report). Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chanile Butterfield[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kadine Delphin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folio Moeaki[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tevita Tukimaka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisala Tuipulotu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Tu'ifangaloka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Point (studio show)[edit]

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

This article about a sports show that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ice hockey. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NTV and WP:V. Fails WP:GNG too. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 03:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the articles current unreferenced form it should be deleted, however with proper sourcing this article should be notable enough for inclusion. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure, with proper sourcing, any article would meet notability. But I could only find press releases and mentions. Do you know of any significant coverage? Whpq (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked and couldn't find anything independent from ESPN and NHL as a reference. As such, fails WP:NTV and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Henriksson (politician)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN and Sports person. The sources in the article are not reliable sources and it lacks WP:SIGCOV. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not had any role that would confer notability under WP:NPOL, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. So this wouldn't be obvious to anyone who isn't intimately familiar with Swedish politics, but being the vice chair of SKR is a very powerful position in Swedish politics, and Henriksson isn't lacking press coverage around that. The regions of Sweden are responsible for healthcare in general, and as the person at Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions responsible for healthcare, Andersson has been the key player in the area which dominates regional politics in Sweden. w:sv:Dagens Medicin, the major Swedish newspaper covering healthcare, has repeatedly had him in the top three when doing their annual list of the most powerful people in Swedish healthcare, in 2017 listing him at the very top, above for example the Minister of Health and Social Affairs. I've added a little bit to the article. /Julle (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle. SKR exerts tremendous influence on swedish health care operations on a national level. The article has now been updated with reliable sources reflecting Henriksson's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draken Bowser (talk • contribs) 08:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Resisting to determine if the sources provided in the comments are sufficient to meet WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Julle. Appears to pass WP:NPOL based on her analysis.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesafe[edit]

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

Despite the long reference list, I don't think this company actually meets WP:CORP. Most of the references either a) don't mention the company, b) are from the company's own website, or c) aren't reliable sources. There's one CNET source that seems OK, but other than that, this feels like promotional spam. PianoDan (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Even if it can be established to be notable WP:TNT is a better option. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Bracks[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO basics, mostly a WP:BIO1E person only known for being a winner of a reality show, which generally fails GNG guidelines. Suggest redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 3) instead. SanAnMan (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SanAnMan (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink deletion discussions. SanAnMan (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO #1 as a national Masterchef winner. Also passes WP:GNG as already demonstrated in the article. St Anselm (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Winning a reality show is far from "a well-known and significant award or honor". - SanAnMan (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Television, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~. One a group of Mass nominations largly based on a false premise, the claim of one event. egs Jackson was known for two series, 2014 and 2020. McKay is curently getting attention for the current season as well as the one she won. Cheliah also was in the current season. Chan is also a TV host with two seasons of a show titled with her name. Lazy nominations lacking any real before. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a general principle, I agree with the keep voters, but Bracks doesn't seem to have done anything significant since winning the show. That seems to be a relatively rare case amongst MasterChef winners, who've usually gone on to stay in a public role in some context, but that others did doesn't render Bracks notable beyond the 2011 series. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also released a book. Sydney Morning Herald (mixed use as it's largely interview). Rise (article) Australian Women Online (don't know about reliability). Bantick, Christopher (18 April 2012), "Spoons full of fun", The Weekly Times (short review). Phillips, Graeme (18 April 2012), "BOOK reviews", The Sunday Tasmanian (short review). Robins, Myrna (14 July 2013), "The ultimate way to finish off a truly memorable meal", Weekend Argus (review). Lupini, Janice (1 August 2013), "Verve", The Star (Johannesburg, South Africa) (review with sample recipe). "Sweet and simple: home cooking greats", Pretoria News, 16 August 2013 (review). duffbeerforme (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Seems to meet WP:GNG, if not quite WP:NAUTHOR given Duffbeerforme's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Made weaker as most sources cluster around 2012/13. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Publishing one cookbook does not seem to meet the standards of WP:NAUTHOR either. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not the publishing of the book, it's the having independant reviews of the book. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The cookbook deal comes with winning the show (and is inevitably going to be reviewed given the attention of winning the show), so arguments based on the prize cookbook essentially amount to arguing inherent notability for Masterchef winners regardless of post-show sourcing. All of the sources cited here also come from 2013 and essentially relate just to the reality show win - there's no lingering notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is loads of Australian news about her launching her book, Indian news about her snubbing the Dalai Lama, she won a television cooking competition that is notable, so that's three events, and multiple news about each of them. CT55555 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per duffbeerforme and CT5555. Easily enough to meet WP:BIO. Deus et lex (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illusion (Aespa song)[edit]

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

The song has been pre-released as a single from the group's upcoming EP Girls. The song doesn't fulfill the criteria for a standalone article. Sources used are just more of a announcement of the surprise release of the single ([7], [8], [9], [10]), retailer ([11]), or articles which just sheds some lights about the single and not the main focus ([12], [13]). Sources are not substantial in proving its notability. The song has charted is not by itself a reason for the standalone article as per WP:NSINGLE. Song also hasn't been promoted by the artists yet. I am fine with the page being redirected to Girls. -ink&fables «talk» 06:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Girls (Aespa EP) as maybe WP:TOOSOON. A WP:BEFORE shows only routine news about its release, like the sources presented by nom. SBKSPP (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Lee[edit]

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

non notable rapper, sourced entirely to vanity spam and blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reposting my original concern with the page that led me to PROD it: "Autobiography with no indication of notability. Page creator seems to make claims that he's worked with Universal Music Group, but no reliable sources could be found that says this." Mori Calliope fan talk 17:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Press-releases confirming he's the CEO of Juice Records, but no reliable sources. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article written by user named "akajuicelee". Unsourced, vanity article. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Line 9 (Chongqing Rail Transit). The argument that all train stations are automatically notable has no basis in an actual guideline, as has been pointed out, which makes the "keep" arguments presented here rather weak. Sandstein 20:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xingke Avenue station[edit]

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. One of many non-notable stations on a large train line. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG, nor of a hope for expansion. I merged it into the train line article and was reverted. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Line 9 (Chongqing Rail Transit). Don't see any reason for a standalone page, per WP:NOPAGE. The article is all of 3 sentences. Should be simple enough to convert the information into a table on the article for Line 9, and other stations on the line with articles in a similar state (like Qinggangping station) can likewise be merged. Those who want to keep all train stations shouldn't have an objection as we aren't deleting information from the encyclopedia in doing this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listify In terms of sources, I only found this. But, redirecting/merging a single railway station article into the line article and leaving everything else cause navigational issues, especially because this is a terminal station. The best option is to listify (style I'm thinking of is similar to List of state routes in Nevada shorter than one mile), but this needs to be done at a line level, to decide which stations to put in the list and which deserve their own articles. This could be solved in this AfD, but I feel its better to make a WP:MERGEPROP on the line article to fully discuss this. Jumpytoo Talk 22:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO they are not mutually exclusive and both worth doing. A decision here would indicate outlook for existing as a separate article and your (tougher to et done) idea would be a bigger fix. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see this somewhat commonly at NPP. An individual starts making a permastub article for every station on a train line. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article covers the station in detail. NemesisAT (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking for sources. I can't speak to the reliability of that source, but assuming it is reliable, that could count for one example of significant coverage. We need multiple. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we need multiple and there is no consensus that we need more than one (if you see the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Notability). A railway station isn't exactly a controversial topic where we need differing viewpoints to remain neutral. NemesisAT (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is longstanding consensus that all railway stations are notable. This includes rapid transit stations that are full stations as opposed to just tram stops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "all rail stations are notable" from? We're supposed to be implementing guidelines here. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand AfD then. It also works on WP:CONSENSUS (a policy, incidentally), as illustrated by WP:RAILOUTCOMES. As I have pointed out numerous times, if whether we kept articles or not was only down to the implementation of "rules" then we wouldn't have AfDs at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is where we (using the wp:consensus process) decide whether or not, based on applicable policies and guidelines it can exist and as a separate article. I'm not against bending the rules or working the borderline when there's a reason. But mass generation of a separate inevitable permastub article for every railroad station on a line isn't what I'd call such a reason, particularly where it clearly fails both GNG and SNG. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line, if you want there to be a policy or guideline stating all railway stations are inherently notable, be my guest and go to the village pump and propose it. And if that becomes the case, I will respect it. But you need to recognize no such policy or guideline exists right now, and that other editors will not be constrained by your arguments of "keep it because we always keep these" when you can't point to any policies or guidelines (besides a misapplication of consensus, because as you have already been reminded, consensus can change). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does the presence of an article constrain you? If you don't like it, don't read or edit it. NemesisAT (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can find more on my philosophy here at [14] and [15]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Line 9 (Chongqing Rail Transit), and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22, 2022. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Merge per Trainsandotherthings. Regarding the long-standing consensus that all stations are notable, consensus can change. Given the number of recent AfDs for minor station stubs, as well as how old the consensus is, I can't see why it shouldn't. It's becoming clearer and clearer that not all stations are notable enough to warrant standalone articles. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I love the "consensus can change" argument. Yes it can. But please point us to proof that it has done in this case. I don't think you'll be able to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Very good chance I misunderstood this, but if you want me to cite a few AfDs...
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valavanur railway station (nominator cited WP:GNG) and corresponding deletion review
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninh Hòa station (nominator cited WP:STATION)
  Granted, both of them were closed with a keep consensus, but a lot of the non-keep !votes are definitely food for thought. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Exactly. They were kept. So consensus has not changed! There is a very clear difference between "consensus has changed" and "I would like consensus to have changed because I don't agree with it"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Trainsandotherthings. No prejudice against re-creating this if and when someone wants to develop this into a more sizable article. As it is, we don't need a WP:Content Fork until there is something more substantial than this.4meter4 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing consensus that all rail stations are notable, see WP:RAILOUTCOMES. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People keep talking about an imaginary "consensus that all rail stations are notable" which does not exist. First, the place such a thing that came out of an actual consensus process is at WP GNG and the SNG's. They aren't mentioned under any SNG's leaving it to GNG says that they have to meet GNG souring. Some folks point to WP:RAILOUTCOMES which:

Is not even a guideline, it's an observation of common outcomes, and per other postsa, it appears that even that observation may be wrong
Conflicts with their blanket statement, stating a few types which are usually kept after which it says:"Other stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on.""

North8000 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ North8000 I agree, but unfortunately Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is often effective at shutting down discourse based in notability policy. It often takes an WP:RFC ruling to overturn these precedences and the way they are used at AFD. Some examples of this would be WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES which have been altered to align with policy after RFCs. I would suggest that a similar RFC is needed to review WP:RAILOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 I agree. But per my even WP:RAILOUTCOMES as-is triply isn't what people have been saying it is. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radiance Protection Factor[edit]

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

This appears to be a promotional article for a term devised by a single company. No evidence it is in sufficiently wide use to meet GNG at this time. PianoDan (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable subject and only exists to promote Eyesafe, yet again. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines, inherently promotional (see PRAXIDICAE's comment), and causes unnecessary confusion with Sun protection factor. Teb (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Note also, that as a product, it should be in the company page anyway, instead of stand-alone, unless inclusion there makes the pag3 too large. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability --Morpho achilles (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total of three hits, one is a PR Newswire, rest are in Chinese. Assuming non-reliable for the last two as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable proprietary/made up standard. Might catch on, might not. At best WP:TOOSOON applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Science. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The worst person you know[edit]

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

Article was redirected after a contested Prod, which I have reverted. Bringing it up here as a better venue to consider deletion. Artw (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Procedural nomination, i should be considered neutral leaning keep. Artw (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article has multiple independent, reliable and secondary sources with significant coverage. The sources are also published over the period of a year, so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. It meets the requirements from the WP:GNG. It is currently a stub article, but can be extended quite a bit from the sources that are currently used. Since the subject has stated he is fine with the publicity in The Guardian article, there should be no problems with WP:BLP to have an article about the subject. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:PhotographyEdits. It does appear to meet general notability. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has indepth coverage over time, e.g.: [16][17][18][19].--Mvqr (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment consider this article should be about the use of the article as an internet meme, not about the guy in the picture, similarly to how "No Way to Prevent This" is written -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 14:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gouleg Good point, I have added this link to the see also section as well. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to "No Way to Prevent This", Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens. I agree that the topic meets GNG, but it's much better to present the article topic in context, and neither article is terribly long. Ovinus (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus That article does not provide any broader context of this article, it is only a different article about a (series of) satirical article(s). PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If any, it should be a redirect to Clickhole -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 15:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gouleg I guess, but merging it into the publisher article does not really provide any valuable context either. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another argument for keeping this article would be the inclusion of the picture: since it is non-free, the entire article has to be about the subject. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PhotographyEdits.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Karin Müller[edit]

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

WP:NBIO huge problems; little reliable sources or general notability of the person. Morpho achilles (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The name is wrong. Ann-Katrin Müller (note the t in Katrin) is the editor for Der Spiegel. https://www.spiegel.de/impressum/autor-67c446b9-0001-0003-0000-000000018273. Vexations (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You find nothing if you search using her incorrect name, as the article does. If you use the correct name, you'll see she is a famous journalist. Also she won a notable award, giving her a clear pass at WP:ANYBIO. There is also news about her, criticising her reporting, but I could not tell if it was tabloid, so didn't add it in, in the context of the ANYBIO pass being clear. Her work is frequently cited if you search for her correct name in Google Books. This article was in poor shape, I assume someone machine translated it from German. I've tidied it up, editing most of it. CT55555 (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move. It seems very wrong to keep this page with the incorrect spelling of her name while it's being considered for deletion. Is it not possible to move this page to the correct spelling of her name, and delete the spelling error once and for all, so we don't perpetuate the mistake? And then resume consideration of whether or not it should be deleted? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the spelling error is increasing the likelihood of people incorrectly reaching conclusions. User:Bookworm857158367 , I wonder if you'd have voted differently if you saw the analysis that followed your vote?

I hope the closer will take this into consideration. CT55555 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If she’s the editor of a major publication, she would be notable. The error ought to be corrected. However, editors on the article should have verified that name before it got to this stage. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She's not the editor-in-chief, so doesn't get the WP:NACADEMIC #8 pass, but I think she gets the WP:ANYBIO pass for the award. CT55555 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please decide first if you want to keep the Articel about Ann-Katrin Müller. Than it is easy to move teh Articel to the right spelling. Thanks. --Samba Olek (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move as we need to get rid of the misspelling problem ASAP, which in itself is a type of BLP issue. To the AfD closer, I would request:

Please close this AfD ASAP, with whatever the appropriate outcome is

If the article is kept in some form, please move the article to the correct spelling Ann-Katrin Müller ASAP rather than waiting for someone else to do it

~~Thank you. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST as a recipient of the Axel-Springer-Preis. I moved the article to the correct title.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't sure it was allowed per the AfD rules in the middle of an AfD discussion, otherwise I would have done it earlier myself. I think the process itself needs some kind of escape button when things go wrong like this. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if she is the political editor of the largest German magazine, how is that not notable? Trillfendi (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article which appears under the correct name now and which has improved in several other important ways since it was first nominated for deletion; we're no longer voting on the viability of the page with the misspelling which should never have been created in the first place and probably should not have passed page triage either (?). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeatStars[edit]

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

I've declined a WP:G11 request on this—I think it's more likely someone trying to write a genuine article, rather than unambiguous spam—but this doesn't appear appropriate for Wikipedia as it stands, and the coverage doesn't appear to exist to bring it up to a minimum standard. ‑ Iridescent 15:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Business. ‑ Iridescent 15:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm seeing a bunch of coverage on Music Business Worldwide[20][21], how do they rate as a source? Artw (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a bunch of coverage of them relating to the Old Town Road sample[22][23], which could be incorporated? The company doesn't seem to get a mention by name on the article. Artw (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe MBW has ever come up at RSN for a conclusive ruling. I can only find two previous mentions of them at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Girgis (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audio Network, both of which were dismissed as just reprinted press releases, but those were both from seven years ago so they may have cleaned up their act when it comes to churnalism. (Given that the two sources you link begin music production marketplace and distributor BeatStars reveals… and BeatStars has just reported… respectively, I'm guessing no.) ‑ Iridescent 16:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a Forbes, unclear if it is the UGC driven kind but it's a reasonable assumption that it is. Artw (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sourcing and article improvement seems possible from what I see in the article and searches. That said some of the present sources may be questionable and it might need a trim back to reflect that unless they can be replaced. Artw (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Yes this was just written as a genuine article, as I knew of the company and knew they didn't have a wikipedia page. I've never written an article on an organisation before so may not have got the tone right. I'm happy to amend to make it more neutral. The sources aren't bad but could be better, so it was tricky figuring out what information was best to go in the article, as there wasn't a lot of options! But maybe some of it needs to just come out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebookstamper (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of sources- once weak ones are removed I think there are enough sources from reliable online publications (Billboard, Complex, Forbes etc) to corroborate facts for an article, but interested to hear if you think that's a no go? Thebookstamper (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Forbes articles by Contributors are not acceptable. Must be from a staff writer, but the 2 Billboard articles are good. Complex is not really about the company. But Fast Company and HotNewHipHop articles are good.Zeddedm (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the direction- I've removed the Complex and Forbes sources. Thebookstamper (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very bad nomination IMO. Billboard, HotNewHipHop and Fast Company are enough to keep this. Billboard is behind paywall but I have full access and reviewed it. Over 50% of the article is about them and it is a very long article. Zeddedm (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per Zeddedm.4meter4 (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonarpur Mahavidyalaya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of an earlier removed article. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 13:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL, no evidence if passes WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG or WP:GNG. --Muhandes (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kakarparthi Bhavanarayana College[edit]

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

Unsourced, rather promotional article. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, unsourced. Search throws up nothing notable in terms of coverage. So it's bye bye from me... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hemantha (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Little participation, no activity in nearly 3 weeks and no expressions of anything other than keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SKP Degree College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does appear to exist and as a degree-awarding institution should be kept per longstanding precedent. --Bduke (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- On what policy is that based? The Banner talk 09:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Florida Collegiate Summer League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeLand Suns[edit]

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

Not notable baseball team. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Florida. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect - There is coverage of this team out there - see here and here; if that's not enough for the article to stay as it is, I think it ought to be redirected to the league's page so that it can be restored if more articles are found or created in the future. Hatman31 (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but am fine with a redirect. Not every college summer league team is notable. Wizardman 17:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per nom as the coverage (not even deep, reliable, etc) is almost absent. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida Collegiate Summer League per nom. Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable team with minimal WP:SIGCOV. The other teams in this league could also be redirected as well. Frank Anchor 15:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Presuming" that references exist does not equal providing them. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Liberal Democrats[edit]

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

Unknown party, the page is totally devoid of sources and even on the web it is practically impossible to find sources about this party. It participated in just one election, the 2005 Lombard regional election, scoring only 0.26% of the vote. Except for the disappointing result in this regional election, there is practically nothing else to add about this party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having participated in Milan municipal elections and having obatined 0.3% of the vote in a regional election in Lombardy, a region with about 10 million people, makes the subject encyclopedic. The Federation of Liberal Democrats was active for about five years, was an associate party of Italy of Values, a founding member of the Citizens' Political Movement and re-established right after. It is clearly better to have a stand-alone article, instead of having all the infos about this party divided in different articles or, worse, losing them. We should improve articles, not delete them. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia and, even though also established and traditional encyclopedias also have small entries, the greatness of Wikipedia is precisely having articles for little-known subjects. The passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but we should avoid recentism and give space also to former minor political parties. --Checco (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that he participated in the municipal elections of Milan, but only in the regional elections in Lombardy, collecting only 0.3% of the votes (the only trace it has left of itself). The very little information on this page are not verified by any source. De facto, the relevance of this party seems completely non-existent.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see only one relevant Google Books hit. The only link provided in the page is the "official website" and is broken (unregistered domain). Yakme (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of a minor political party appears to be notable and it is presumed that references exist. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. I believe that the party, having participated in multiple elections, should be kept, but, in order not to lose the article's history, what about a merger through redirect with Italy of Values or, alternatively, Citizens' Political Movement? --Checco (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that this party only participated in the Lombard regional elections, in which other elections did it participate? Anyway, it does not seem to me a relevant topic in the history of the Italy of Values, nor in that of the Citizens' Political Movement (also proposed for deletion)...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it has to be a merger (not my choice!), we could indeed merge this article and Citizens' Political Movement into For the Common Good., the joint list including also the two parties now proposed for deletion which participated in the 2008 Italian general election. --Checco (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 13:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read in a comment that "it is presumed that references exist": is it presumed by what? The page is written in five lines and great part of them seem a WP:Original research. For example, where are the sources abouth the "disagreements with Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio"? I am not able to find sources about this party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE that the simple fact that something is proven to exist does not make it pass the general notability criteria. So your arguments are not valid. Yakme (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the keep arguments have made a policy based rationale. This is a short lived political party without significant coverage in multiple independent references. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idahoan Foods[edit]

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

It seems like they should be notable, but as Steevven1 noted back in 2017, finding independent sourcing is a challenge. They run a lot of sponsored content such as this, but I can't find anything that approaches N:ORG despite their long history. This cites Wikipedia and appears to also rehash a lot of this, which was clearly a press release. Both are more about the incoming CEO than the company. Star Mississippi 13:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Companies, and Idaho. Star Mississippi 13:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FTR, their parent company R. D. Offutt also has no article, nor does its founder/CEO, who is the wealthiest man in ND lol...valereee (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tagged since 2010 for notability. I now know more than I had ever wanted to about powdered potato, which was very little indeed. Absolutely no sign of notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intec Telecom Systems[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence for notability of Intec. A Before shows routine coverage of acquisitions, and itself being acquired, but nothing that adds up to N:ORG. Borderline G11, but it has a long history and could be stubbed back if there were anything on which to write an article. Star Mississippi 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Specialised vendor, no evidence of notability, FTSE SmallCap doesn't get us over the line. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough independent reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP --Bash7oven (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article rather frozen in time at 2010 when this company was acquired by CSG International. The article content is an unreferenced list of clients (from whom notability is not inherited) and a list of previous acquisition announcements, which are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Aside from a brief case study I am not finding coverage; fails WP:NCORP. It has a line entry at CSG_International#Acquisitions, so a redirect could be an WP:ATD, though Intec appears to have left no trace at CSG's website. AllyD (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Balamba[edit]

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

Soldier and museum guard, in no way notable, no extensive coverage, no in depth coverage - in fact, no coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Democratic Republic of the Congo and Belgium. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The medal won was awarded to soldiers under fire during the war, was widely distributed. Rest is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing suggests this person is notable. We may well need an article on the Congolese volunteer corps he was part of, but nothing suggests he is as a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Madness, Vol. 1[edit]

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

EP release. No chart position, no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG; WP:NMUSIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources already listed demonstrate baseline notability (several magazine articles and CMT). Why? I Ask (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's unclear to me why the sourcing already present isn't enough to meet the GNG. CMT is pretty high level, mainstream coverage too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage from CMT alone is significant coverage. Taste of Country is also considered an RS for country music material, and it's cited twice here with articles primarily focused on the EP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Significant media coverage by high ranking country music sites gives notability to the article. Urbanracer34 (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's even more coverage than what I added to the article, clears notability no problem. QuietHere (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep or merge, but do not delete history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677 What would we be merging it with? The artist article? And for what it's worth, I'm opposed to merging and my keep vote stands, just figured I should ask. QuietHere (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Yes, merge to Maddie & Tae. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It could possibly be merged when the full album comes out (as this seems to be just part one), but the information on this page (such as the tracklist) can not really fit on the parent page. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Maddie & Tae, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22, 2022. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Keep - The suggestion to merge seems to be a bit of a throwaway in a vote that also suggested keeping. Merging to the band's article is nonsensical because this album's existence is already mentioned there, and nowhere else in Wikipedia (I hope) will you find a lopsided musician's article in which the history and details of one album are crammed in awkwardly while all their other albums have separate articles. Meanwhile, I am convinced by the "keep" voters above, who have cited the necessary sources and WP policies. Expanding this into a merge discussion is both awkward and bureaucratic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable EP with enough coverage. Misceditor1000 (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Muszynski[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Has been tagged for that since April. Of the 5 linked films/shows, 4 had zero mention of him and one had a few word mention. Of the three references, 2 were just listing type mentions from his own school/employer and a third I was not able to check. Did a search and could find no GNG type coverage. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's next to nothing out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TellyChakkar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the Afaq's source is not a independent source, it is a primary source because all details they mentioned about Tellychakkar is from the owner or someone connected to it. No independent source found on the internet to cite this article. Removed some sources which are just passing one or two mentions nothing more. Grabup (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Grabup (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Websites, and India. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:WEBSITE due to lack of independent and significant coverage. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Ahmed Abdelaty Farag[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As with the previous AFD in 2020 (and the re-post in Jan. 2022, speedy deleted G4), there's no evidence of him meeting WP:NFOOTY yet, and the article is still referenced almost exclusively with copies of the same "Egyptian Ronaldo" text, but posted to new websites this time: see previous version at the Wayback Machine. I can't find any evidence that he's played in a professional match yet, though I'll say up front that I'm relying on Google Translate for the Arabic, and fluent Arabic readers might find a reliable source that I've missed. Note that second division Baynounah SC was formerly known as "Sport Support". Article appears to be an autobiography: see also Khaled Ahmed(Egyption Footballer and Draft:Khaled Ahmed Abdelaty Farag, by the same rather single-focused editor. Storchy (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Egypt, and United Arab Emirates. Storchy (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Storchy @Spiderone @Storchy

dear ALL thanks for your support kindly remove the message for article for deletion

thanks . Khaledahmed1992 (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khaledahmed1992, Wikipedia has notability guidelines for which subjects are notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. As far as I can tell, he doesn't meet the guidelines for notable sportspeople at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). The article about Khaled Ahmed, born 1992, has been deleted a few times for this reason. Has he ever played in a professional match? Storchy (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this is the third time this article has been posted, it's been deleted the previous twice, and no evidence of any substantial new sources that demonstrate he now passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was re-created at Khaled Ahmed Abdelaty, and I've just noticed that User:Mosultan2021 created something quite similar last year at User:Mosultan2021/sandbox and User:Mosultan2021/Khaled Ahmed Abd ElAty. All of their subsequent contributions are to articles created by User:Khaledahmed1992, and to an AFD for one of those articles. Storchy (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User: Khaledahmed1992 says that they were unaware of the policies on multiple accounts, and will no longer edit from account User:Mosultan2021: [24]. Storchy (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Storchy thanks for understand me and i hope you will remove the AFD and the message for delete from the article ,

khaled ahmed farag he have a verified account on social me this will help us in the reference here in wikipedea .

https://www.tiktok.com/@khaledahmed.74?lang=en

https://twitter.com/khaledahmed7474

https://www.instagram.com/khaledahmed.74/?hl=en

https://www.facebook.com/Khaled.cr.07 Khaledahmed1992 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social media accounts are of no use here. You still haven't answered: has he played a single professional match? Storchy (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Storchy yes he played alot of professional matches . Khaledahmed1992 (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, have you got any WP:Reliable sources to verify that? Storchy (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Storchy

THIS THREE LINKS PROFESSIONAL MATCHES FROM THE UAEFA WEBSITE .

https://www.uaefa.ae/en/match/40585

https://www.uaefa.ae/en/match/40598

https://www.uaefa.ae/en/match/40605 Khaledahmed1992 (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be the official UAE Football Association website, and I can see a player called Khaled Ahmed Farag in those links, but unfortunately the pages don't currently show which teams were playing in the matches. Since the UAE Second Division League is the third tier of Emirati football, and a mix of private and amateur clubs, I can't tell whether any of those were professional matches. Storchy (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Storchy BECOUSE ALL OF THIS MATCHES FINISHED . YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE PLAYER PROFILE IN https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%83%D9%88%D9%88%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9

https://www.goalzz.com/?player=89682 Khaledahmed1992 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That first link is a Wikipedia article about Kooora.com: not a reliable source.

The second is a profile on goalzz.com, which says nothing about matches played.

It's worth noting that the Arabic Wikipedia article on Khaled Ahmed was also deleted two days ago on grounds of notability. Storchy (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - autobiography on a non-notable footballer. This still fails WP:GNG. Nothing substantial has changed since we discussed him last time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Simione001 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. It doesn't matter if he has played any professional games, if he doesn't have WP:SIGCOV then he is non-notable per WP:NSPORT. Alvaldi (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Philharmonic Orchestra[edit]

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

Nothing is directly supported by (reliable) sources. Can't find anything about this subject in the internet. Also check the talk page of the article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Estonia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this different than the National Symphony Orchestra? Also finding a Philharmonic Chamber Choir, unsure if these are all the same entity. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two you mentioned (Eesti Riiklik Sümfooniaorkester-ERSO and Eesti Filharmoonia Kammerkoor-EFK) are very famous and all/most Estonians know them. But what is Philharmonic Orchestra, don't know and never heard of it. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nigh-on impossible to verify what on earth this is supposed to be, sourcing's a mess and search throws up so many variations, I feel it safer to start again. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment after reading this and this, I'm pretty sure it should be either deleted or merged with Eesti Kontsert. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Eesti Kontsert. Never heard of this orchestra in my life and doesn't appear to be notable at all. The references are horrible and don't establish any notability and are frankly, confusing. It's made mention of by Neeme Järvi, but only in conjunction with Eesti Kontsert, but not much else. ExRat (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Idaho State Historical Society. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E. L. "Shorty" Fuller[edit]

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

Not seeing anything out of the ordinary about this photographer, no awards, no memorable photos. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge No sources found, could be a redirect to the museum where his papers are held. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, History, and Idaho. ––FormalDude talk 14:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a few hits using his full name "Everett L. Fuller" or "Everett L. Shorty Fuller", but nothing substanital so far, mostly photo credits. 617 of his photos are in the Idaho archive (added a citation). Netherzone (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Idaho State Historical Society, unless more turns up. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to either to Idaho State Historical Society, or to Idaho Statesman. I've done a fairly extensive BEFORE using several variations on his name; did not find anything to support notability. It seems he was important to Idaho history as a photographer/photojournalist, otherwise I doubt the Historical Society would have 3,000 of his negatives, prints and additional materials, however there is not enough about him online or in a newspaper search to support GNG nor NARTIST. He should be mentioned somewhere in the encyclopedia though; I added a small entry to supplement his name that was already in the Idaho Statesman article. Netherzone (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Idaho Historical Society--Onetimememorial (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger -- Idaho State Hist Soc no doubt has many collections in its archive. It might be appropriate to have a "list of collections" section, but such a list could only have the odd sentence on each collection, Equally a merger to the newspaper that he worked for would upset the balance of that article. It is wrong to say there are no sources. There are sources and I would expect a State Historical Society's publications to be accurate, though they would not be independent of the repository. I am not sure that we can have an article supporting every deposit in every museum/archive, but 3000 negatives is not inconsiderable. Weak keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron I agree with you that 3,000 negatives in a collection is impressive and suggests notability. I searched for another collection since two notable public collections would meet criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST, however I couldn't find anything verifiable after searching museums in Idaho, and the obvious national museum collections. I'm open to changing my !vote, if another collection or some SIGCOV is found. Netherzone (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Idaho State Historical Society.4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alf Lawrie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable as head of factual entertainment at UK's channel 4, page is a tad promotional, at that. Sources presented are tangential or run of the mill announcements. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 173.179.229.12 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. John Vianney School[edit]

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

No notability presented, none inherent. Poor sourcing, mad photogallery. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NSCHOOL. WP is not a school newsletter. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenInsight[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPRODUCT. Unable to find reliable sources to satisfy the notability of this software apart from very brief mentions in industry magazines. Some of the content potentially veers into WP:PROMO. Bonoahx (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Bonoahx (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Best source I found was a 1/3 page news article about a new release in the Network World magazine (18 September 1995, pp. 37-38), there are two other short news articles in the Computerworld magazine, but these are mostly about Revelation Technologies partnership with Lotus (so next to nothing about this software). I tried to find more sources, but it seems this software package was out of scope of the usual tech magazines (close to 2000 USD for a license back in 1995). Pavlor (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Paraguay[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Same issues as the many dozens of similar lists already deleted over the last months, but main issue is the lack of sources specifically about the list topic as a group (there are sources about specific stamp issues, and about Paraguayan stamps in general, but not sources discussing the topic of people on stamps of Paraguay in general). As usual, this list is largely abandoned and is just being edited as parts of general maintenance; the "year" links which follow each name go to Wikimedia Commons (in itself a poor choice which violated the WP:MOS): but the target pages are deleted at Commons... (some even never existed, like this one). The Vanity Fair source has nothing at all about a Paraguayan stamp, hardly surprising. Fram (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Paraguay. Fram (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Could you please give links to or examples of the deletion discussions for the "many dozens of similar lists". please?. Were they deleted by WP:AFD or by WP:PROD? Thanks, Hallucegenia (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This gives an idea (not all results are for AfDs, but the first 70 (? guesstimate) are all about these). There have also been Prods. Fram (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is very helpful. It's a pity that these have all been addressed in isolation, rather than having a single discussion about them all. Hallucegenia (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same reasons as all the others. Even if sources could exist to prove that these people were on stamps, no sources in 70+ AFDs have proven the existence of sources about the subject of them being on stamps. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This list should be merged with all the others into List of people on postage stamps, which is currently a redirect to a list of lists. That single list would surely qualify as notable, containing as it ~~does~~ would stamps from the US and the UK. This page should then be converted into a redirect to the appropriate Paraguayan section of that single list. The single list would clearly need a lot of work to make sure it was properly referenced, but that is a different issue from this AfD discussion. Hallucegenia (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no sourcing here that talks about this specific group as a group. This is hardly surprising because this is in the main "non-Paraguayan competitors in the Olympics that Paraguay decided to put on its stamps, with a few other non-Paraguayans and a very few Paraguayans". The fact that one of the two sources says nothing of Paraguay, let alone anything of its stamps, just is indicative of how not a significant fact someone being put on a stamp is, and of how little justification there is to have articles like this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulaide Mzé Mbaba[edit]

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

Comprehensive failure of WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Estonia national football team results (1991–2009). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia national football team 2000[edit]

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

Information is less informative than existing article that already covers this exact subject: 2000 in Estonian football. Perhaps a deletion > redirect? Lindsey40186 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, because it's currently just a list of games. But maybe into a new page? National football team results are pretty common, but they are usually 1 wikipedia page for 10/20 years. So Estonia national football team results (2000–2009) would also be an option, as is Spain national football team results (2000–2009). More can be seen at Category:National association football team results by team. The one sentence can be moved to 2000 in Estonian football yes. Anyway, the match report, referee and attendance should also be included in the target page. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:40, 6 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!} 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2000 in Estonian football until such time as the Estonia national football team results (2000–2009) article is created. Giant Snowman 18:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Estonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Estonia national football team results (1991–2009) or to any of the other articles mentioned above. The other "Estonia NFT (insert year here)" articles should also be deleted and/or redirected to broader Estonia national football team result list articles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lindsey40186 and KingSkyLord: About the last comment. You may wanna check articles such as 2004 Indonesia national football team results+others, 2011 Curaçao national football team results+others, 1971 Japan national football team+others, 1974 UAE national football team results+others, 2009 El Salvador national football team season+others, India national football teams in 2012–13. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A variety of different redirects have been proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Estonia national football team results (1991–2009). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Arena Football League in Detroit[edit]

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

Unclear why Massachusetts_Marauders#Detroit_Drive_(1988–1993) and Detroit_Fury#History needed to be copied and pasted into a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE article. Reywas92^Talk 05:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Readers interested in the history of the AFL in Detroit would likely look up the Detroit Drive or Detroit Fury. Frank Anchor 12:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. Unless I'm missing something (which is always possible) it seems proecdural to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Kitandwe[edit]

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

non-notable aviator. The first women to be a flight instructor is a given country might be reason for an article, but she's just the third. the refs are PR. Even the infobox gives as "known for:, merely "professional competence". This is not an encyclopedic subject, and it is not encyclopedic writing DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it is some chancer who is looking for an article on evidence that is most tenuous I've seen. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Aviation, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete She seems to be one of a few females in her field in Uganda, almost notable. Xinhua is debatable as a reliable source, but I feel it's not much of a propagandistic element for the Central Chinese Gov't to cover a pilot in Uganda. With better sourcing, could be kept. Unable to find any at this time, a deep dive perhaps later might turn up more. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one of a "few females in her field in Uganda, " is not a reason for an article. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Adengo[edit]

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

This is a cv of a non-notable businessperson. "Head of Sustainability" is not a major position. The references are not truly independent, (Ref 1 is a promotional cv, r. 2 is just social media, r.3 is no longer in existence, and r. 4 is a press release. There is no reason to think there would be any better, for the subject is "Not Yet Notable".

I shall be looking at other articles from this long-term contributor. Idon;t think its coi, but just poor judgement. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Some lady doing her job. Is it the same chancer hoping to get an article on his/her paid contacts. That is beyond belief, how poorly notable that article is. Some random person. scope_creep^Talk 07:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought might be drive by editor, some kind of chancer like that, but its not. The editor has 178k edits. I'm just wondering if they are burnt out a bit, went off the beam. I know the feeling. scope_creep^Talk 07:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, but a commendable effort. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Arena Football League in Denver[edit]

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

Merely a copy-and-paste of Colorado_Crush#History and Denver_Dynamite_(arena_football)#History with zero additional content, unclear what the basis for such a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE article is. Reywas92^Talk 04:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Readers interested in the history of the AFL in Denver would likely just look up the Colorado Crush or Denver Dynamite. Frank Anchor 12:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecssary content fork.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Driving Training and Research[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:N and WP:COI Jmjosh90 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Jmjosh90 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MGM Group of Institutions[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY Jmjosh90 (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jmjosh90 (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability missing Proton Dental (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals as per point 4 of WP:Speedy keep (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Sinha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~My WP:BEFORE search in both English and Hindi didn't find any WP:sigcov either, and roles are minor. So Sinha does not appear to be notable at this time. BrutBrother (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)~~ struck blocked confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, and India. BrutBrother (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's So Hollywood[edit]

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

Single-affiliate show. Couldn't find any sources beyond what's already here Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:15, 29 May 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 00:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one last time to see if another editor will participate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could not find any secondary sources covering this show, meaning it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mad (magazine) and Alfred E. Neuman Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cowznofski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability asserted. Sources are all about Alfred E. Neuman and only passingly mention the term "cowznofski". WP:BEFORE yielded only superficial mentions in the context of other things. Previous two AFDs a decade ago were all over the map, with almost everyone pulling in a different direction and no consensus forming even after a relist. Given the obscurity of this term, I do not think a merge or redirect is warranted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced parts to Mad (magazine) and Alfred E. Neuman. Not sure if then delete or convert to disambig. In either case, no evidence this word / joke has received enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, and certainly connecting the piece about MAD and about Neuman into one entry seems SYNTH. It's like a poor, 3-entry list of "media that have used the word Cownznofski". Extreme, niche, WP:NOTTVTROPES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone verify (or refute) that the Chicago Tribune article says what it references? That would substantiate the connection to Alfred E. Neumann. A number of short treatments in secondary sources exist: [25], p. 35, [26], p. 61.... Oh, I found two confirming the Moxie Cownznofski - Alfred E. Neumann connection: [27] p. 110, [28].
Merge to Mad (magazine) and Alfred E. Neuman per Piotrus.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Gaines deliberately varied the spelling of the name. It was frequently spelled "Coznowski" ([29]). Additional sources will be found searching for this spelling. Newspapers.com has a bunch of articles under both spellings. Jacona (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep Looking at the sources, while none is very long, togethere they would allow to fullfill WP:WHYN. No objections against treating the subject within the Mad (magazine) and Alfred E. Neuman articles, connections are established by secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per Piotrus. Agree that this is WP:OR combining multiple uses of the same word and does not meet the WP:GNG for significant coverage. Merge appears to be a growing compromise. Jontesta (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per per Piotrus.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 03:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life House[edit]

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

Overly promotional article stood up on finance news pieces and passing mentions. Company is not notable, fails WP:ORGSIG, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so Condé Nast Traveler, Fortune, Vogue, Travel + Leisure, Architectural Digest are not reliable and quality sources in the world of travel? I have eliminated everything that could have been intended as an advertisement; the article certainly needs to be improved, but the cancellation seems to me really excessive!Cheers--Alessandra Boccone (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have an established, long history. The article here is using them as passing mentions of the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adakiko can you help me understand? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandra Boccone (talk • contribs) 08:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 175 sources on Life House Hotels with the date of publication and link:

# DuJour June 23, 2020

Coveteur July 9, 2020 https://coveteur.com/2020/07/09/northeastern-summer-getaways/
Departures August 14, 2020 https://www.departures.com/travel/hotels/nantucket-newest-luxury-hotel-life-house
HospitalityNet August 14, 2020 https://www.hospitalitynet.org/announcement/41005006/life-house-nantucket.html
Forbes.com August 14, 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/taylorboozan/2020/08/14/life-house-nantucket/?sh=39dd537630cf
Forbes.com August 16, 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jqlouise/2020/08/16/the-oldest-hotel-on-nantucket-island-just-got-a-covid-friendly-facelift/#7bae6f723e34
Conde Nat Traveler August 18, 2020 https://www.cntraveler.com/story/life-house-nantucket-first-in
Travel + Leisure August 19, 2020 https://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/life-house-nantucket-hotel-opening
AFAR August 21, 2020 https://www.afar.com/magazine/socially-distanced-trip-ideas
NBC Boston August 21, 2020 https://www.necn.com/luxe-life-with-derek-z/luxe-travel-the-oldest-operating-inn-on-nantucket-updated/2313654/
Galerie August 21, 2020 https://www.galeriemagazine.com/life-house-nantucket-hotel-oldest-inn/
dwell August 28, 2020 https://www.dwell.com/article/life-house-nantucket-66cec4d6
Vogue August 31, 2020 https://www.vogue.com/article/last-minute-labor-day-getaways-from-nyc
Town & Country September 2, 2020 https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/g12091512/best-places-to-visit-in-october/
DuJour September 2, 2020 https://dujour.com/lifestyle/nantucket-massachusetts-weekend-travel-bucket-list/
Boston Globe September 3, 2020 https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/03/lifestyle/nantuckets-life-house-gives-former-bb-fresh-start/
Boston Globe September 8, 2020
Domino September 9, 2020 https://www.domino.com/content/nautical-decor-ideas-life-house-nantucket/
TripSavvy September 12, 2020 https://www.tripsavvy.com/best-luxury-hotel-buyouts-across-the-u-s-5077546
Business Insider September 13, 2020 https://www.businessinsider.com/best-off-season-travel-deals#chatham-bars-inn-cape-cod-massachusetts-10
Vogue September 18, 2020 https://www.vogue.com/article/nantucket-fall-vacation-holiday-guide
DuJour October 8, 2020 https://dujour.com/lifestyle/room-request-life-house-nantucket/
The Daily Beast October 12, 2020 https://www.thedailybeast.com/taking-my-kids-where-they-dont-belong-is-one-of-my-favorite-things
Modern Luxury Boston October 2020 https://digital.modernluxury.com/publication/?m=46795&i=674126&p=26
Harper's Bazaar October 16, 2020 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/travel-dining/g6025/weekend-getaways-from-nyc/
Forbes.com October 31, 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/taylorboozan/2020/10/31/life-house-hotels-new-denver-outpost-is-an-inspired-western-pioneers-victorian-homestead/?sh=4c8a9f5c72ab
Hospitality Net November 15, 2020 https://www.hospitalitynet.org/announcement/41005415/life-house-lower-highlands.html
Town & Country November 3, 2020 https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/a34031209/nantucket-pandemic-response/
Vogue November 5, 2020 https://www.vogue.com/article/east-coast-farm-trips-for-a-peaceful-weekend-away
Conde Nast Traveler December 2020 https://apple.news/APTIvr9jvR4eV1JnyUA65FA
Fox31 - Denver November 25, 2020 https://kdvr.com/news/local/cant-travel-due-to-the-pandemic-denver-hotel-staycation-likened-to-summer-camp-for-adults/
Conde Nast Traveler November 25, 2020 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/train-station-hotels
TripSavvy November 30, 2020 https://www.tripsavvy.com/denver-life-house-lower-highlands-hotel-5088708
Colorado Real Estate Journal December 2, 2020 https://crej.com/news/boutique-hotel-opens-in-lower-highlands/
Westword December 1, 2020 https://www.westword.com/restaurants/life-house-hotel-and-wildflower-open-in-denvers-lohi-neighborhood-11853260
303 Magazine December 2, 2020 https://303magazine.com/2020/12/wildflower-new-lohi-restaurant-life-house-hotel/
Coastal Living December 2020 https://apple.news/AzQa2nStMR_CkyF9aC9wWoQ
Ranti in Review December 8, 2020 https://rantiinreview.com/my-first-stay-cation-of-2020-lifehouse-hotel-lohi/
Town & Country December 10, 2020 https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/g13502602/best-places-to-celebrate-new-years-eve/
The Somm Journal December 2020 https://www.sommjournal.com/digital-edition-december-2020/
Cool Hunting December 15, 2020 https://coolhunting.com/travel/denver-life-house-lower-highlands-hotel/
Travel + Leisure December 17, 2020 https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/best-places-to-travel-in-2021
Architectural Digest December 19, 2020 https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/most-anticipated-high-design-hotel-openings-2021
Denver Post December 24, 2020 https://www.denverpost.com/2020/12/23/best-new-denver-restaurants-2020-2/
Vogue December 28, 2020 https://www.vogue.com/article/the-23-most-anticipated-hotel-openings-of-2021
Harper's Bazaar December 30, 2020 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/travel-dining/a35091014/best-places-to-travel-2021/
Forbes.com January 5, 2021 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoletrilivas/2021/01/05/the-best-new-boutique-hotels-opening-in-2021/
Tablet January 16, 2021 https://magazine.tablethotels.com/en/2021/01/executive-decision/
SLEEPER January 21, 2021
Hospitality Design January 29, 2021 https://www.hospitalitydesign.com/galleries/projects-hotels-resorts-wellness/best-hotel-openings-2020/#17
Hospitality Design January 29, 2021 https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/hd/202101/index.php?startid=45#/p/42
AFAR February 5, 2021 https://www.afar.com/magazine/at-life-house-hotels-you-feel-like-you-belong
AFAR February 8, 2021 https://www.afar.com/magazine/6-of-the-best-weekend-getaways-from-nyc
Fathom February 8, 2021 https://fathomaway.com/best-new-hotels-2021/
5280 February 16, 2021 https://www.5280.com/2021/02/wildflower-should-be-your-next-date-night-destination/
Harper's Bazaar February 22, 2021 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/travel-dining/g35411572/new-hotels-2021/
Business Insider March 2, 2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/best-hotels-in-denver
Wall Street Journal March 9, 2021 https://www.wsj.com/articles/search-engine-kayak-courts-small-hotel-owners-with-digital-app-service-11615294800
Skift March 9, 2021 https://skift.com/2021/03/09/kayak-moves-into-hotels-by-opening-miami-beach-property-in-partnership-with-life-house/
Fast Company March 9, 2021 https://www.fastcompany.com/90611209/travel-website-kayak-goes-brick-and-mortar-with-a-new-miami-beach-hotel
Forbes.com March 9, 2021 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandratalty/2021/03/09/kayak-launches-first-ever-hotel-ceo-says-more-to-come/?sh=54f6d2fa5f4f
Travel + Leisure March 9, 2021 https://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/kayak-hotel-opening-miami-beach
Fortune March 9, 2021 https://fortune.com/2021/03/09/kayak-miami-beach-hotel-reservations/
Travel Weekly March 9, 2021 https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Hotel-News/Kayak-moves-from-hotel-search-to-hotel-ownership-with-Miami-Beach-property
Hotels Mag March 9, 2021 https://www.hotelsmag.com/Industry/News/Details/97770
Travel World News March 9, 2021 https://www.travelworldnews.com/kayak-enters-hotel-business-set-to-open-first-hotel-in-miami-beach/
Fox News March 9, 2021 https://www.foxnews.com/travel/booking-site-kayak-opening-first-hotel-miami.amp
Boutique Hotels March 9, 2021 https://www.boutiquehotelnews.com/news/hotel/kayak-miami-beach-opening-april-2021
Hotel Management March 9, 2021 https://www.hotelmanagement.net/development/kayak-to-develop-miami-hotel?mkt_tok=Mjk0LU1RRi0wNTYAAAF7u8N_ZE8AEIIdCPCfEDbbiJiMSI5AI0LDXX5N3eqmWBJstj8_WCw0hAeUDOrKmHZSResof1lBgsoTE9qDrNXWNinyeLcbawDK_W564bCQrz2hPFB-Zms&mrkid=126050490
Barron's March 10, 2021 https://www.barrons.com/articles/worldwise-life-house-hotels-founder-rami-zeidans-favorite-things-01615325846
Robinhood Snaks March 10, 2021 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ohhhh-macrame-kayaks-hotel-leap-amazons-alabama-situation/id1386234384?i=1000512374332
USA TODAY March 10, 2021 https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/hotels/2021/03/10/kayak-open-first-tech-forward-hotel-miami-beach-april-11/6937780002/
Business Insider March 14, 2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/kayak-first-hotel-in-miami-beach-florida-tech-life-house-2021-3
Travel+Leisure March 19, 2021 https://apple.news/Awm0nIcEkSpSszbqbneDEAg
Miami Herald March 23, 2021 https://www.miamiherald.com/miami-com/restaurants/article250121794.html
Miami Herald March 29, 2021 https://www.miamiherald.com/article250234815.html
Conde Nast Traveler March 31, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/story/what-to-do-in-nantucket
Commercial Observer April 2, 2021 https://commercialobserver.com/2021/04/openings-from-carbone-to-moxy-hotel-enliven-the-miami-scene/
Miami News Times April 5, 2021 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/the-best-new-restaurants-to-try-in-miami-this-week-april-4-2021-12052429
New York Times April 6, 2021 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/dining/nyc-restaurant-news.html
Food & Wine April 7, 2021 https://www.foodandwine.com/news/opentable-restaurant-layla-miami-beach
Ocean Drive April 8, 2021 https://oceandrive.com/life-house-launches-kayak-miami-beach
South Florida Business Journal April 9, 2021 https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2021/04/09/opentable-operated-restaurant-opens-in-miami-beach.html
Eater Miami April 13, 2021 https://miami.eater.com/2021/1/7/22212001/miami-restaurant-openings-2021-new-map-guide
Skift April 15, 2021 https://skift.com/2021/04/15/what-a-stay-at-kayaks-new-miami-beach-hotel-revealed/
SELECTA April 15, 2021
Travel + Leisure April 19, 2021 https://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/boutique-hotels/kayak-miami-beach-hotel-opening-review
Travel Weekly April 19, 2021 https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Hotel-News/A-first-look-at-the-new-Kayak-Hotel-Miami-Beach
Travel + Leisure April 20, 2021 https://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/it-list-the-best-new-hotels
Travel + Leisure April 20, 2021 https://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/it-list-the-best-new-hotels
Forbes.com April 25, 2021 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ramseyqubein/2021/04/25/hotter-than-ever-the-newest-hotels-in-miami-beach-for-2021/?sh=4e59fdbd46df
The Daily Beast April 26, 2021 https://www.thedailybeast.com/kayakcom-can-recommend-a-new-hotel-in-miamiits-own?ref=topic
Business Insider April 26, 2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/experts-say-these-9-hotel-chains-are-ones-to-watch-2021-4#
Conde Nast Traveler May 6, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/best-new-hotels-in-the-world
Conde Nast Traveler May 6, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/best-new-hotels-in-the-world
Conde Nast Traveller (UK) May 6, 2021 https://www.cntraveller.com/gallery/best-new-hotels-north-america-mexico
Conde Nast Traveller (UK) May 6, 2021 https://www.cntraveller.com/gallery/best-new-hotels-north-america-mexico
Indagara May 10, 2021 https://www.indagare.com/destinations/north-america/mid-atlantic_region/washington-d-c/articles/best-new-boutique-hotels-us-2021
Denver Post May 10, 2021 https://theknow.denverpost.com/2021/05/05/new-colorado-hotels-vacations/257827/
Bostom Magazine May 11, 2021 https://www.boston.com/travel/travel/2021/05/10/best-new-hotels-conde-nast-traveler/
Cape Cod Times May 11, 2021 https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2021/05/10/hottest-new-hotels-named-conde-nast-includes-nantucket-property/5022704001/
Time Out Miami May 12, 2021 https://www.timeout.com/miami/restaurants/best-new-restaurants-in-miami?sgs
Architectural Digest May 21, 2021 https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/ads-2021-hotel-awards
Fodor's Travel May 22, 2021 https://www.fodors.com/world/north-america/usa/florida/miami/experiences/news/a-travel-booking-site-opened-a-hotel-and-you-know-what-its-nice
Eater Miami June 1, 2021 https://miami.eater.com/maps/best-middle-eastern-food-miami-map-guide
Thrillist June 8, 2021 https://www.thrillist.com/travel/miami/miami-goodtime-hotel-openings
Business Insider June 14, 2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/life-house-hotel-software-is-a-winner-pandemic-labor-shortage-2021-6
Hospitality Design - Awards June 10, 2021 https://hospitalitydesign.com/projects/hotels-resorts/hd-project-awards-finalists-2021/
Food & Wine June 14, 2021 https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/restaurants/miami-summer-restaurant-scene
Architectural Digest July 6, 2021 https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/coolest-indoor-outdoor-restaurants-to-dine-at-right-now
New York Magazine July 7, 2021 https://nymag.com/strategist/article/best-covid-safe-hotels.html
Indagare July 19, 2021 https://www.indagare.com/destinations/north-america/new-england/nantucket/articles/visiting-nantucket-2021
Fathom July 22, 2021 https://mailchi.mp/fathomaway/building-the-future-of-local-hotels?e=d1a0d2b144
5280 August 2, 2021 https://www.5280.com/2021/08/staycation-inside-lohis-gorgeous-life-house-hotel/
Wall Street Journal August 7, 2021 https://www.wsj.com/articles/he-devised-a-solo-soccer-workout-to-a-heart-thumping-beat-11628330400
Elle Decoration UK August 19,2021
Southern Living September 10, 2021 https://www.southernliving.com/travel/beach-hotels
Conde Nast Traveler - RCA AWARDS October 5, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/the-best-hotels-in-the-world
SUITCASE UK October 9, 2021
Conde Nast Traveler - RCA AWARDS October 9, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/new-england-top-hotels
Conde Nast Traveler - RCA AWARDS October 9, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/top-hotels-in-denver-readers-choice-awards#intcid=_cnt-verso-bottom-recirc_d[…]7-46d0-ab98-541aa882d793_text2vec1
Cape Cod Times October 10, 2021 https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2021/10/08/nantucket-marthas-vineyard-cape-cod-[…]resorts-inn-conde-nast-traveler-readers-choice/6017401001/
The Denver Post October 10, 2021 https://www.denverpost.com/2021/10/05/best-hotels-resorts-world-conde-nast-colorado/
Out There October 10, 2021 https://www.outtherecolorado.com/news/multiple-colorado-hotels-dubbed-best-in-the-world-i[…]awards/article_79e66934-260c-11ec-9855-e7fe402618fc.html
Yahoo Lifestyle October 10, 2021 https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/top-30-hotels-northeast-readers-110000998.html
Tablet Magazine October 11, 2021 https://magazine.tablethotels.com/en/2021/10/chaos-agent/
The Knot October 18, 2021 https://www.theknot.com/content/nantucket-island-honeymoon-weather-travel-guide
Time Out Miami October 21, 2021 https://www.timeout.com/miami/news/this-adorable-little-havana-rooftop-bar-is-finally-reopening-102121
SLEEPER October 22, 2021 https://www.sleepermagazine.com/stories/projects/life-house-little-havana-reopens/
Fortune November 7, 2021 https://fortune.com/2021/11/07/miami-boutique-luxury-hotels-life-house/
Forbes.com November 8. 2021 https://www.forbes.com/sites/anniedavidson/2021/11/08/the-hotel-capturing-the-spirit-of-miamis-little-havana/?sh=4e8933414742
Miami New Times November 8, 2021 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/new-miami-restaurants-include-izzys-brooklyn-smokehouse-terras-and-no-mans-land-13251335
Io Donna - Corriere Della Sera November 8, 2021 https://www.iodonna.it/lifestyle/casa-e-design/2021/11/08/jenny-bukovec-designer-life-house-hotel/
Travel Daily News November 8, 2021 https://www.traveldailynews.com/post/life-house-reopens-its-first-boutique-hotel-in-miamis-little-havana-neighborhood
Hospitality Net November 8, 2021 https://www.hospitalitynet.org/announcement/41007164/life-house-little-havana.html
The Infatuation November 8, 2021 https://www.theinfatuation.com/miami/guides/the-miami-bar-hit-list-where-to-drink-right-now
The daily Beast November 10, 2021 https://www.thedailybeast.com/life-house-little-havanaa-neighborhood-hotel-with-a-different-miami-view?ref=scroll
Le Figaro November 11, 2021
Vogue November 15, 2021 https://www.vogue.com/article/where-to-go-and-what-to-wear-november-2021
Town & Country November 29, 2021 https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/g13502602/best-places-to-celebrate-new-years-eve/
Departures November 30, 2021 https://www.departures.com/travel/life-house-hotel-nantucket-miami-denver?linknav=us-dp-home-featuredarticles-card-135540-p-3
Bloomberg December 2, 2021 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-02/kayak-backed-hotel-startup-life-house-raises-new-funding
BetaKit December 2, 2021 https://betakit.com/life-house-closes-77-million-cad-round-co-led-by-inovia-kayak-to-help-hotels-boost-profitability/
PhocusWire December 2, 2021 https://www.phocuswire.com/kayak-leads-60m-series-c-for-life-house
Fortune December 2, 2021 https://fortune.com/2021/12/02/from-fintechs-to-workers-unions-the-future-of-tech-is-about-scaling-to-power/
Skift December 2, 2021 https://skift.com/2021/12/02/kayaks-hotels-partner-life-house-receives-60-million-in-new-financing/amp/
PitchBook December 3, 2021 https://pitchbook.com/newsletter/kayak-leads-60m-round-for-life-house
TravelWeekly December 3, 2021 https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Hotel-News/Kayak-leads-funding-round-for-Life-House
Reportur December 3, 2021 https://www.reportur.com/agencias/2021/12/02/kayak-invierte-en-la-operadora-de-sus-hoteles-life-house/
Bnn Bloomberg Canada December 3, 2021 https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/kayak-backed-hotel-startup-life-house-raises-new-funding-at-250-million-valuation-1.1690123
WSJ PRO - Venture Capital December 3, 2021
FinSMEs December 3, 2021 https://www.finsmes.com/2021/12/life-house-raises-60m-in-series-c-funding.html
TravelDailyNews December 3, 2021 https://www.traveldailynews.com/post/life-house-raises-60m-in-funding-from-inovia-capital-kayak-and-tiger-global
Hotel Management December 3, 2021 https://www.hotelmanagement.net/food-beverage/life-house-raises-60m-funding
Architectural Digest December 15, 2021 https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/last-minute-holiday-travel
Vogue December 20, 2021 https://www.vogue.com/article/the-26-most-anticipated-new-hotel-openings-of-2022
New York Magazine December 29, 2021 https://nymag.com/strategist/article/best-hotels-miami-2022.html
The Vermont Standard January 6, 2022 https://thevermontstandard.com/shire-woodstock-hotel-sold-to-reopen-next-week/
Hospitality Design January 7, 2022 https://hospitalitydesign.com/news/hotels-resorts/life-house-the-shire-woodstock/
AFAR January 25, 2022 https://www.afar.com/magazine/all-you-need-to-plan-a-south-florida-vacation-this-winter
5280 January 26, 2022 https://www.5280.com/magazine/5280-february-2022/
Vanity Fair Italy January 27, 2022
Fathom February 8, 2022 https://fathomaway.com/preview-best-new-hotels-2022/
Miami News Times February 8, 2022 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/miamis-best-super-bowl-lvi-watch-parties-13850732
Harper's Bazaar February 22, 2022 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/a38913719/best-places-to-travel-2022/
Cool Hunting March 8, 2022 https://coolhunting.com/travel/word-of-mouth-little-havana-miami/
Fast Company - Most Innovative Companies Award March 8, 2022 https://www.fastcompany.com/90724488/most-innovative-companies-travel-2022
AFAR March 16, 2022 https://www.afar.com/magazine/kayak-hotel-miami-beach-review
SUITCASE March 21, 2022
Thrillist April 5, 2022 https://www.thrillist.com/drink/miami/best-rooftop-bars-miami
Hospitality Design April 18, 2022 https://hospitalitydesign.com/news/hotels-resorts/life-house-south-of-fifth/
Hospitality Technology April 20, 2022 https://hospitalitytech.com/ht-exclusive-life-house-hotels-new-revenue-management-marketing-system
Monocle April 20, 2022 https://monocle.com/radio/shows/the-entrepreneurs/549/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandra Boccone (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, funding announcements used as "sources", press releases or mentions in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because reading the 173 sources immediately we understand that we are talking about a solid reality and encyclopedic relevance.Alessandra Boccone (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Alessandra Boccone: No one is going to evaluate 173 sources, and from skimming the URLs it seems they are mostly trivial or dependent coverage, which WP:ORGCRIT notes is not sufficient to establish notability. What are the best WP:THREE sources that show the company is notable? The best sources are those where the author has conducted original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Jumpytoo Talk 03:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:NOTADVERTISING. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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