Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 14	November 16 >

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Panamá 2022[edit]

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

Subject not shown to meet general notability guideline. Sources shown are two Telemetro items of 253 words and 190 words, and one Critica item of 146 words; then there is a supposed Instagram post which is also a dead link. According to my WP:BEFORE scan, this title seems to get next to no attention outside of its home country. PROD contested by creator. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Panama. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The contest in question was a national event held to choose a winner of one of the most renowned international contests such as Miss World, I see no reason to eliminate it when the sources and links that give truth to said event are mentioned, In wikipedia there are many articles about beauty pageants, especially Miss World, if it were to be eliminated, each one of them should be eliminated for all countries. And if it is necessary to add more sources that corroborate said event, it can be done because many media covered said election. If you consider it is not relevant, then you should eliminate the same for all countries such as Venezuela, Colombia or Miss Mexico where it is a national event. It was a remarkable event and because someone considers that for her or him it is not, especially if he is a stranger to this kind of national event, it is not the same for everyone, the article reports on who participated and how the winner was chosen. Evanex (talk) 8:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And for the evaluation of this debate, notability is not inherited, making your other argument that it is "one of the most renowned international contests" moot. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The "no attention outside of its home country" isn't a problem. In addition to the ongoing coverage from Telemetro over several months, the article from Critica appears to be editorially independent (though at first I thought it wasn't). WP:GNG is met, barely. Thparkth (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~(conditional)~~~~- my view could change depending on answers to my final point below.~~ The originator of this article Evanex has also created pages for previous years' Miss Panama contests that have not attracted an AfD request even though the sources are similar to those here. I note that the proposer of this AfD Bri deleted substantial parts of the present article's text using Wikipedia:Verifiability as justification, prior to proposing this AfD, restored, then deleted again thus making the article a stub. My view is that a template request for more reliable sources would have been and remains more appropriate than deletion. I agree with Thparkth that "no attention outside of its home country" doesn't make the article non-notable per se. However, the live sources are written in Spanish not English. Does this impact on notability for the article being included in the English language Wikipedia? Rupples (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now found WP:NONENG so will strike out condition Rupples (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 06:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tzipora Rimon[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Limited coverage of her, mainly about doing routine things as an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to USL League Two. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Springs Ascent[edit]

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

Article about a soccer team that only existed for one year. Can't find any sources that prove its notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Colorado Springs Ascent. Newspapers.com search yields 27 hits for 2000–2001, but these are mostly listings of matches, and a few match reports. Not notable. (More recently, it gets mentioned as part of former coach Mark Plakorus's bio.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Dayton Gemini as well. Newspapers.com search yields 54 hits for 2000–2002, but these are match listings or mentions at best, in articles about former players or about the facilities they were using. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to USL League Two per GiantSnowman. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to USL League Two, the league they competed in, as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harish I. Patel[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Mpen320 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. All the sources referenced in article are not reliable and independent and I am unable to find more sources in a google search. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:RS WP:GNG. User4edits (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article fails WP:GNG and don't have even a single citation which comply with WP:RS. No reliable or independent source available.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 08:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article lacks sufficient proof of fulfilling the WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yandeńo (talk • contribs) 13:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Delete nothing in terms of WP:RS referencing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, especially noting the lack of RS per User4edits, TheChunky, and GPL93. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what am I missing? non trivial Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Reporter (Interview). A few others exist: perhaps enough for WP:BASIC. Bruxton (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking (album)[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. The one source that might have showed notability - Guardian - is a dead link. My own searches are only yielding user-generated content. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also worth noting the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juiceslf (singer). QuietHere (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indications of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Considering the whole shebang surrounding Juiceslf, I'd also say salt. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The album itself has not achieved its own notability, and the musician's article is likely to be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juiceslf (singer). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree that the series currently fails the notability guidelines. but I need it to be drafted so that I can improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeitbro (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space is not a hosting space for non-notable topics. Also given the clear WP:COI around Juiceslf in general, I think it would be wrong to retain any of this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know my article about the album is not that notable but the Juiceslf article seems to meet Wiki:criteria for musicians "Musicians or ensembles must meet either one of the following criteria", meaning they do not have to meet all criterias listed before they can be notable, because he meet one of the criteria by his music Top 100 apple music chart and wrote some books. Makeitbro (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that he has charted in the top 100; the 'reference' for this has no mention of Juiceslf. Writing books doesn't make someone notable. I've written plenty of books and poems in my younger years but I don't pass WP:NAUTHOR so I don't get an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seems notable Babatafuns (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Bruxton (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Power[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. BLP article disguised as a business articles. References are passing mentions, interviews, profiles and a mix of PR. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 21:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete - possible abuse of platform: It very much reads like PR as per your comments. ~~I was looking for authorship (which I cannot find due to a redirect - and I am a new editor so if you could help in that regard - thanks)~~ the article "feels" like WP:COI or paid pr. Of interest to me was the Special-purpose acquisition company which would be reliant on marketing. It was also disconcerting that disclaimers can be found on possible supporting sources " This journal may receive a share from purchases made via links on this page. Every item is independently selected by the Journal Shopping team. Prices and availability are subject to change." Perhaps the article could be tagged with an advertising template Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.. all the aforementioned articles and related articles were created by a blocked paid editor UPE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timtempleton

and I also see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Timtempleton (where you discussed this issue in overview).

Just looking at the Katherine Power article there are several other articles that overlap and were written in synergy (to act together as marketing). Then there are "single use accounts" which hide a coordinated effort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Koreil2 and here we are again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clique_Brands&action=history and then press releases related to the SPAC. As a new editor, and user of Wikipedia I would say we are looking at an abuse of the platform. I would say "Delete" or at the least tag every related article. Just let me know what you want to do (and what is appropriate) I will help you in that effort. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company, and there does not appear to be much beyond WP:PROMO to merge and my own search has not found more to add. E.g. one of the most-cited references is a 2016 NYT interview, without secondary context; the other most-cited reference (at one point misattributed as Business Insider in the article) is a 2016 Forbes article summarizing a podcast interview; there is also a brief 2018 Business Insider article that has two grafs of non-interview content about the development of her career. The 2020 WWD article is also mostly an interview, with 7 sentences of non-interview content about her career; the 2021 FastCompany article includes promotional quotes, links to purchase products, and prices, as well as a two-graf overview of her career; the 2015 HuffPost article is totally interview. I searched for book reviews beyond the 2009 Instyle capsule in the article but only found a 2016 Cultured Vultures review (e.g. "The Career Code is a book that holds platitudes of practical advice."), so WP:AUTHOR notability does not appear supported. The creator of the article removed [1] a link to a 2020 Vox article that mentions Power indirectly in an image caption and discusses Who What Wear directly, and does not seem to add support for notability. For the option of a redirect, this BLP makes it appear as if Clique Brands and Who What Wear are separately notable entities, but Who What Wear was a brand within Clique Brands, so Clique Brands seems to be the most appropriate redirect target. Beccaynr (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete None of the references on the page talk about him beyond a passing mention. Fails WP:SIGCOV.AndrewYuke (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done a little work looking into Powers, and put some additional sources into the article. On the one hand I understand Beccaynr's argument about WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME; on the other hand there are quite a few articles mentioning Power which may add up to WP:BASIC. However, I would like to investigate further to make sure the sources are independent of her companies as there could be a circular set of citations (a company owned by Power, talking about Power, being used to support notability of Power here in WP). In other words, no conclusive delete/keep from me yet, but a promise for more to come. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best three sources are the Wall Street Journal article available in ProQuest,^[1] the Forbes article,^[2] and the Insider article.^[3] From these I have pulled what details I could find about Power. I have also trimmed the article down quite a bit to make the focus on her and not the various brands she has been involved in. Given that she has founded multiple businesses with an on-line basis, it's perhaps not surprising that she has a strong public relations presence on-line. I think given the top three (and ignoring all the interviews, of which there are many), I think this is Weak keep. That being said, I can be convinced of a redirect to Clique Brands. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rosman, Katherine (22 August 2009). "Style -- In Fashion: They Know What She Wore Last Night --- WhoWhatWear's Hillary Kerr and Katherine Power turn celebrity sleuthing into a business". Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. pp. W.5.
^ O'Connor, Clare (2016-10-28). "Clique Media Group Adds CollegeFashionista To Portfolio Of Women-Focused Web Brands". forbes.com. Retrieved 2018-08-21.
^ Lansat, Myelle; Feloni, Richard (2018-07-06). "The CEO of a fashion business with $28 million and an audience of 25 million decided to skip college and go straight to work after 45 minutes driving around a parking lot". businessinsider.com. Retrieved 2018-08-21.

Comment It is a generally a seven day Afd, although it can go on longer if consensus is needed. Lets look at the references:

Ref 1 [2] PR. Advertising piece.
Ref 2 [3] This is an interview. It is WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 3 [4] This is an interview. PR. Its is WP:PRIMARY
Ref 4 [5] Another interview. WP:PRIMARY
Ref 5 [6] Business news. Acquitistions fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 7 [7] It is a PR piece. It is WP:PRIMARY, from their advertising budget.
Ref 8 [8] A discussion of the busines.
Ref 9 [9] Another interview. WP:PRIMARY
Ref 10 [10] PR.
Ref 11 Same reference as above. Same photographs. Likely a press-release, PR
Ref 12 [11] Passing mention. Name is mentioned.
Ref 13 [12] Press-release, PR.
Ref 14 Cameron Diaz and entrepreneur Katherine Power. Examination of clean wine. Not related to this BLP.

The rest of the refs are becoming progressively dissaociated from the subject.She is a business women with an advertsing budget she has used extensively to promote her business. Lots of business coverage promoting the business failing WP:PROMO. No WP:SECONDARY sources to verify she is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scope Creep's analysis of sources. I am not particularly convinced that Power's associated companies, Clique Brands and Who What Wear, are particularly notable either and they should probably be nominated for deletion as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and above discussion. I have a real problem with "40 under 40" made-up lists. They don't really convey notability, but get in the way of real sources. In 2022, everyone knows we are not a web host, nor are we primarily a social media app. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of active shooter incidents in the United States in 2020[edit]

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

I believe this Wikipedia article should be deleted because it is too similar to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020. Silent-Rains (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is indeed very similar and it is unnecessary and unproductive to have two of the same article. DHSchool2003Student (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is essentially WP:OR. MelatoninEmbryo (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially a duplicate of the other article. The other article has a more comprehensive list so this one should be deleted. ProofRobust 21:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Duplicate. WP:OR.BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a duplicate article, as the nominator and others have noted. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate Bruxton (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively back into the other list. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Hloshardin[edit]

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

Not notable. Played several matches in the third league of the championship of Ukraine. There is no coverage in secondary sources. Yakudza (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second tier of Ukrainian football league pyramid, not third. Andriyrussu (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found nothing better than a trivial match report mention in Shpalta Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he passed GNG for a professional footballers and played 19 matches at the professional level. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Very strange nomination for delition and above comments.--Noel baran (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I lock at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and see: "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear".--Yakudza (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you can look at the reference of the Professional football league of Ukraine (that reference is available: http://pfl.ua/ and the status document: http://pfl.ua/docs/5fe821ecd867dd634fe129951ef2a7b6.pdf, where is indicated about professional status of this league). It means, that Hloshardin 3 seasons played as professional (see: http://pfl.ua/players/22507--Noel baran (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please can you explain how playing in a professional league means that the subject passes WP:GNG? Participation-based criteria were removed from WP:NSPORTS following WP:NSPORTS2022. Hloshardin would need to have significant coverage from independent and reliable sources to be notable. Please can you post links to sources showing significant coverage (this, of course, excludes database sites like Soccerway and Footballdatabase.eu) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; it doesn't matter than Hloshardin played in a league that claims to be professional as WP:NSPORTS2022 deprecated NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juiceslf (singer)[edit]

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

I originally tagged this for speedy delete, but it was reverted (not by original creator). The article appears to have already been deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Juiceslf (musician). Sungodtemple (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete!The nominator should understand that not every article on Wikipedia is meant for deletion, some may be stubs Wikipedia:Stub and can be improved with time as musicians or ensembles status and credibility improves, that was why wikipedia stated in Wiki:criteria for musicians "Musicians or ensembles must meet either one of the following criteria", meaning they do not have to meet all criterias listed before they can be notable, they may meet some and others with time, although he is a notable musician satisfy the basic MUSICBIO and i spent my time creating it on draft before making it to be an article. He has had an album on country's Nigerian Apple Top 100 music chart here https://www.top-charts.com/songs/all-genres/nigeria/apple-music/2020-W22 and he published two books here https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BK5SXV28 and https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BK4XXN8J which is an example of notability and he even been signed a record deal https://menafn.com/1104799437/How-Dynast-Daniel-discovered-new-Steadee-Records-signee-Juiceslf and he even got nominated for the The Headies here https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/05/2022-headies-full-list-nominees/.Degal22 (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Note to the closing admin: Degal22 is the creator of the article subject of this AfD. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Zero hits in reliable news sources for Nigeria. Should be WP:SALTed just like Juiceslf and Juiceslf (rapper). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nomination, previous AfD, and Spiderone. Note for related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cracking (album). QuietHere (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been improved and I believe the editor make the article of the musician to be notable because has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself as noted from the satisfaction of MUSICBIO. everything was written with good citations from independent news sources, artists do not have to work with other notable artists before they can become notable in their country or have an article on Wikipedia, what is important about notability is having recognised and covered by independent news sources under wikipedia guidelines. I'm convinced this passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:NMUSICIAN. Trivial mentions on a nomination for an award. Talk to me. 🙏🙏 (talk) 129,0, 16 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There is no indication of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in fairness, being nominated for the Headies is some indication of notability – they are a major music award ceremony in Nigeria. Richard3120 (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's not actually listed as a nominee in the ref [13].-KH-1(talk) 02:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is check in the ref here [14] Degal22 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he was nominated for "Rookie of the year" at The Headies 2022. But he is not mentioned as a nominee or winner at the WP article for that ceremony. Billboard has an article listing the nominees and he is not listed there: [15]. And even if he was nominated, he didn't win: [16]. The article linked by Degal22 above is the only media source I can find that mentions JuicesIf and the Headies in the same place, and it's also a shallow promotional reprint. He said he was nominated, but nobody else did. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GAMENAME of non-notable musician.-KH-1 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stinks of undisclosed paid editing or a conflict of interest. So bold of them to assume that sources are not read. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, I'm pretty sure recreation has been a problem for this article (in fact, I recognized the name while browsing recent changes). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Claims are not even in the sources. Lilsusanalex (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Sock strike Girth Summit _(blether) 18:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Already deleted just three months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juiceslf (musician). Nothing has changed since then. The sources that actually mention this musician are clearly retreads of his own promotional announcements. This article is just another attempt at the same, and violates WP:GAMENAME, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and WP:COI. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cracking (album). I also recommend salting due to multiple attempts to game the system; that move could be rescinded if the musician ever achieves notability in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Bruxton (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, self-promotion. I concur with all the salt suggestions due to issues of recreation and sockpuppetry. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hermantown, Minnesota plane crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. While certainly tragic, hundreds of small private aircraft crash every year, and there is little indication that this particular incident will have WP:LASTING impact beyond the initial flurry of media coverage that such crashes unfortunately tend to attract. No wikinotable people were involved, and no airworthiness issues with the C172 nor systemic problems with the airspace system have been implicated. Per longstanding consensus in the WP:AVIATION community, this incident is not notable, and the article should be deleted. Carguychris (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Carguychris (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a famous aviation accident. Arrow Air charter (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − Run-of-the-mill general aviation accident like countless others that tragically happen every other day or so. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I made an article for the 2022 Longmont, CO mid-air collision between light aircraft and the consensus was to delete for the same reasons. I believe this needs to be deleted based on the arguments presented. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 17:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable, albeit tragic, and not WP:LASTING. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable crash Bruxton (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry, but such accidents in General aviation are all too common, which is a good reason not to fly on a private plane. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational coupling constant[edit]

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

This article fails notability: the non-notable phrase "gravitational coupling constant" has no notable or authoritative definition, and is rarely used but has conflicting uses where it does occur (including for the Einstein gravitational constant or the Newtonian constant of gravitation). The meaning used in this article was rarely used by isolated science writers/popularizers, and was largely popularized from there by Wikipedia itself. —Quondum 18:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - substantial coverage in numerous independent, secondary sources. Although the name is ambiguous, it is referred to as "Gravitational coupling constant" in sources. ProofRobust 20:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the "independent secondary sources" that you claim serve as notable coverage. —Quondum 20:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To name a few:

- The Gravitational Constant: Generalized Gravitational Theories and Experiments

- Calculations and Interpretations of The Fundamental Constants

- Beyond Coincidence

ProofRobust 21:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At most one of those (the first) is a reliable source, and as an item in a collection of conference proceedings, it is the lowest tier of physics publication. Merely plucking items out of a Google Books search for a string of words is not the way to write a physics article. XOR'easter (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first, being a paper proposing a form of modified gravity, is a primary source (I'd take note if someone respectable like Frank Wilczek used it, but he seems to have used the term to mean G). The other two sources here are self-published. Finding reliable secondary sources is challenging (I've searched several times before and failed). —Quondum 00:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would be my first choice — this is a pile of synthesis that basically admits as much (α_G is seldom mentioned in the physics literature, etc.). Moreover, all of the text is about a highly nonstandard definition; on the infrequent occasions when actual physics papers use the term, they mean $G$ or $8\pi G/c^{4}$ or something proportional to ${\sqrt {G}}$ . We could potentially have a "the term gravitational coupling constant may refer to any of the following" kind of page, but that would require blowing up this article and starting over, and I question the need for it anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient evidence of notability as a concept. PianoDan (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in a field subject to as much research as this one, obscure concepts like this don't deserve their own Wikipedia articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universal Gravitational Constant It is clear from the discussion above that the term refers to something in literature - it's just not clear what its refers to, out of the plethora of possible physical quantities relating to gravitation. Someone searching for the term could probably find relevant information in the article for G anyways. Fermiboson (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Universal Gravitational Constant is already a redirect, so we shouldn't redirect to it, and if there isn't a single established meaning, we can't establish one ourselves. XOR'easter (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that all the possible meanings relate to G, though. Fermiboson (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively back to Gravitational constant. It's a thing but there is so little information in secondary sources, but let's keep the information and redirect link, because our core readership (students) might search for this exact term. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the term is so peripheral, including it in gravitational constant risks being undue at best, and we shouldn't preserve synthesis by merging it into another page. I think that a properly selective merge would end up carrying over no content at all. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Galla[edit]

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

AFD as PROD is contested. The actor does not pass WP:NACTOR. Being the son of a member of Parliament does not confer notability, and being the grandson of a former ex-minister also didn't guarantee any notability. If in the future he became famous, an article could be made but as of now, per WP:CRYSTAL, he didn't have any notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable to me. Move to draft, so the creator can continue to work on it. Catfurball (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that the work shouldn't be deleted. Move to draft to allow continuing development of article. Perhaps the author just moved to mainspace too soon? User:Schminnte (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as above. User4edits (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hero (2022 film), it seems he hasn't received much coverage outside of the film or his family. I don't see the potential for an article here.Yandeńo (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Asian national space programs[edit]

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

This article is full of WP:OR and like many other comparison-based lists it is just based on the views of Wikipedia users instead of reliable sources. Wareon (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary redundant article based on a neolosgist term of Asian Space Race. Most space programs have been covered on their individual and better organised general spaceflight pages. Comparative sources for Asian programs and limited use of term "Asian Space Race", aren't sufficient in prevalence to make a standalone article (and updating the comparison on base of sources isn't possible since compararative sources not often get updated) which turns article into WP:OR gradually. It's just a redundant page which doesn't cover anything which other articles don't.Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Asia. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the comments above. I don't think there is truly anything notable that would require an "Asian program" focus versus detailed pages on the national programs of each country. China and India are clearly investing and Japan has a mature program. Put the time into the national program page for each country... Page List of government space agencies includes the agencies on this page. If there were unique content on this page that did not fit on the individual national agency page, it could be placed on the "list" page that covers worldwide agencies/programs.SpaceHist65 (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a pretty useless page. There is no Asian Space Race. No one of political significance has ever acknowledged such a thing. DockMajestic (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this topic (specifically comparing Asian space programs) appears to basically be synthesis and does not have sources talking about the subject framed in those terms to demonstrate notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G12 by Whpq. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two Hours Before Midnight[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Fails Wikipedia:NBOOK. Gazal world (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK and then some. Zero coverage except the two "sources" in the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and NBOOK. No independent or secondary sources in the article. ProofRobust 17:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published book, non-notable with no reviews or much of anything else found. We aren't here to help you sell your book. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article CSD G12 for copyright infringement. The article is mostly plot that has been taken from a website. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riva Arora[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still WP:TOOSOON. Still no major roles since previous AFD in 2018, just supporting ones. Some of the articles concern her social media controversy with another actor and that's not mentioned. Recommend draftify but there was another draft there, so here we are. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all appear to be minor roles. Nothing found for substantial sourcing, simply mentions of her. Oaktree b (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not done any significant role in the movies which are listed in the article. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, possibly promotional.User4edits (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON.Yandeńo (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have tended to delete articles about child actors who are barely notable. I even had one of the articles I created deleted for that reason. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Jones (artist)[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an artist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for artists. This is referenced overwhelmingly to primary sources, such as YouTube videos and her own self-published website about herself and the self-published websites of galleries where her work has been shown, with absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real media used at all -- and while there's also a "further reading" section that lists (but does not link) a bunch of additional "sources" that aren't being used as footnotes, they still largely aren't helping much: a lot of them are Q&A interviews in which the subject is talking about herself in the first person, which is fine for verifying facts but doesn't help to build notability as it doesn't represent third party coverage or analysis; a few are merely primary source verification (which doesn't help notability) that she spoke on panels or had shows; and even the few that are genuinely solid and WP:GNG-worthy all just represent local coverage in her own hometown media market, with no evidence of nationalizing coverage shown at all.
As always, notability is not established just by verifying facts; it's established by demonstrating the existence of third-party coverage and analysis about those facts, such as art critics reviewing her art and people writing about her as the subject rather than simply quoting her as the speaker. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears the article is still in draft space? Oaktree b (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Article author reacted to the AfD nomination by immediately moving it to draftspace. I have moved it back. --Finngall ^talk 18:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she was nominated for an art award in a CBC article I find and listed as having participated in a display in a BC art gallery. Rather trivial coverage. What's in the article is too wordy to be useful and some of it is self-sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify if only to give a new editor a break and give them time to understand better what are reliable sources. I suspect it might be WP:TOOSOON but let's assume otherwise for the time being. Curiocurio (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ All info referenced to the artist's CV needs to be removed. The article confuses exhibition vs. collection and that really needs to be clarified and sources. I deleted some of the completely unsourced information, and moved the CV lists to the talk page WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all the fluff and still don't know if artist meets notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In an attempt to save this article I have cut it down to just reliable sources and removed all jargon. More info could be added if properly sourced. Still don't know if this is still WP:TOOSOON. Interesting art. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went looking for additional sources, and didn't pull up anything. I'm not opposed to draftifying in the hope that more substantiative coverage that meets GNG becomes available, but what's out there right now does not meet that threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - locally known artist; with only local, possibly unreliable sources, fails WP:NARTIST. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Dhakal (politician)[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in an election. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while a candidate gets an article only if either (a) he can demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons, or (b) he can show a credible reason why his candidacy should be treated as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But this fails to demonstrate either of those things (it tries for the latter test but misses, because a candidate isn't more special for challenging Person X than they would be for challenging Person Y), and is "referenced" solely to his own campaign website. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nepal. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly written article. Any coverage is only brief and not significant. Doesn't meet NPOL or GNG. ProofRobust 17:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is simply a "meet the candidates" article with a brief bio. Long way from GNG. I'm not sure what (Election symbol:syringe) is supposed to be. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Candidates of election are not notable. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks notability. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Consensus is fairly strong here per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close: withdrawn by nominator and no one else voted for anything but 'keep'. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LC Waikiki[edit]

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

There's a lack of WP:ORGCRIT-compliant sources in the article or turning up in my BEFORE. I see lots of local coverage of branch openings/closings, which is all trivial. There's some coverage of a controversy from this July where they released and then removed a shirt in Turkey with Arabic language writing (e.g. [https://www.middleeasteye.net/video/arab-customers-call-boycott-international-clothing-brand-lc-waikiki this video piece in Middle East Eye), but the coverage I'm seeing is focused on the product, not the company, and does not give us info on the company that we could use to craft an article.
As a caveat, I'm accessing Turkish-language sources via machine-translation and I don't have a good sense of what Turkish sources are considered reliable. Many have been marked or unmarked (but blatant) press releases. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Companies, and Turkey. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ignoring the state of the article itself, it's pretty much impossible for a company of this size—the largest in Turkey—to not have any non-trivial coverage. There is this journal article about the company. Not all of the content is independent, but there is some analysis and opinion present and definitely contributes to passing WP:ORG. This article analyses the impact of its marketing. Another article analyses a playable ad of the company, though I'm not really sure if this contributes to notability (the extended abstract on p. 76 is in English). There are some hits in books, which may have more independent coverage. There were some protests earlier this year against its anti-LGBT stance. Sources from the 80s and 90s presumably also exist, as searching the Cumhuriyet archives from that era gives 6 results (which I can't link to) while Milliyet gives 43. I can't prove that some, if any, of these older sources have something that contributes to notability since Cumhuriyet is paywalled and the archives of Milliyet are basically unreadable, but there might be something, and I don't think it's a huge strech to think so. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two independent sources for the article. One of the sources is Forbes. Since the CEO is a billionare Forbes includes him on its page and also gives information about the company and its history. I also found another story about the company. I am willing to add more and improve the article if it wont be deleted. Metuboy (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At over 1250 individual locations world-wide, they are 5 times larger than Urban Outfitters, 2 times as large as Hot Topic, about the same as C&A, 12 times as large as Fanzz, larger than Abercrombie & Fitch, Banana Republic and Uniqlo. Most of those examples are so recognisable in the west that you don't even need to do any search to know that they are notable, and they are smaller than LC WAIKIKI. The same level of recognition applies to LC WAIKIKI in the countries that they are active.--Gazozlu (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for finding additional sources. I'm now also a keep on this and am therefore withdrawing and speedily closing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Road[edit]

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

Article about a road, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for roads. As always, the notability test for a road is not automatically passed just by verifying that it exists, and rather a road needs to establish some historical, political or social context for what might make it significantly more notable than most other roads -- but this is referenced solely to Google Maps and a short local news article about 1.2 kilometres of construction, which is the kind of run of the mill sourcing that every road on the planet can show. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an important road whick links Oberon to Jenolan Caves and Kanangra-Boyd National Park. Sickminecraft45 (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every single road on the planet connects something to something else, so that isn't a notability claim in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a lot of generic roads that connect cities and parks. This isn't that long or designated as a major highway, and just local news about routine maintenance work on a segment does not establish notability. I see a lot of other roads on the map nearby this one, and a national park being at the end of this one doesn't make it notable. Reywas92^Talk 16:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What’s wrong with the page? Jenolan Caves, O’Connell, Goulburn-Oberon, and other roads in the area have articles. Sickminecraft45 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough then. Maybe the article should be made a draft? Sickminecraft45 (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not the Oregon Trail, it's simply a road. Lack of sourcing showing why this road is more important than other roads and deserves an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOROAD. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator is correct. Bruxton (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Does not meet notability. I see no non-routine sources talking about this college. The article is not in the either of the templates listed below. Roostery123 (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Tamil Nadu. Skynxnex (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craftsmen at Work[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV, just rewriting of an old 1940s television programme which appears to be neither notable, nor significant, nor remembered. Unsourced except for the BBC. JJLiu112 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no secondary sources (in the article, or found through Wikipedia Library, Newspapers.com, ProQuest. Does not meet WP:GNG. Suggest nominating Made by Hand for deletion as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brandon Williams (politician). With the article's creator (and only substantial author) agreeing to a redirect and with no opposition, this debate does not need to remain open for the full week. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 19:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Williams (American politician)[edit]

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

Speedy redirect to Brandon Williams (politician). Article on Brandon Williams has already existed since August 2022, creator must have missed it. Mooonswimmer 15:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed it. I actually double checked for like two days before creating the article. Maybe it wasn't visible because of the redirection to this #REDIRECT [[2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 22]] and it was only after I created the article that the redirection was removed. The article should be redirected with immediate effect Thank you Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brandon Williams (politician) per nom. No need for two separate articles. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as a Keep as there is not a strong Delete rationale presented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stardom (EP)[edit]

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

Not a deletion proposal rather than an ask. I think this could be a weak keep just with what's here but I'm curious what other editors think. Between the #1 charting in Korea and the Chosun coverage (considered reliable per WP:KO/RS) it could maybe scrape by. Both the Chosun sources were my finds from a month ago and I don't remember finding anything else but maybe there's more out there. The group gets consistent coverage these days so it's not impossible. If it's not a keep then redirect to Up10tion#Extended_plays. QuietHere (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Korea. QuietHere (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if it topped a noteworthy chart and was nominated for some notable awards, I'm guessing the sourcing is out there somewhere. I'm okay with a stub when there's content like that to be said. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per Sergecross' argument. SBKSPP (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Jubba Airways crash[edit]

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

The articles does not meet the criteria for WP:AIRCRASH. It also does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Africa, and Somalia. Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet PERSISTENCE. Not a significant event, no ongoing coverage after the event occurred. Coverage is not in-depth. ProofRobust 18:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - longstanding consensus in the WP:AVIATION community is that hull loss accidents with serious injuries involving large commercial airliners are typically considered notable, lack of English-language sources from Somalia notwithstanding. (The cited sources don't state that this is a hull loss, but considering that it's an older airliner and it reportedly rolled over, it's a reasonable assumption.) WP:AIRCRASH is misapplied here; it applies to the inclusion of crashes in articles about airports, airlines and aircraft types, not to the notability of standalone articles. :Carguychris (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as Carguychris said, within WP:AVIATION the loss of a major airliner with casualties is routinely covered with a dedicated article. Plus: have you guys watched the videos in the referenced sources? Aircraft flipped over and huge fireball that miraculously leaves the fuselage unscathed. Had the same accident happened in the US, it would have been front page news for days. That it happened in a developing country with a poor aviation safety record and minimal coverage in English sources does not change the nature of the event. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on coverage. not the event. Hence, the videos are irrelevant. If the article does not have enough sources to meet WP:GNG, it should be deleted. I have failed to find such sources. Can you please link to the sources you have found? ProofRobust 21:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[17], BBC already included in the article.
[18], FlightGlobal, major aviation publication.
[19], The Aviation Herald, accident news website widely used as RS here.
[20], a mention on Stars and Stripes.

all covering the event with dedicated articles. That's well past WP:GNG. 'Significant coverage' does not mean 'extensive coverage'. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources look like secondary sources to me. ProofRobust 10:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The only primary sources for this event would be e.g a press release from the airline, the airport, or the aircraft's manufacturer involved, or possibly a statement from the local authorities. All of the above sources are secondary. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any analysis, evaluation, or interpretation as per WP:SECONDARY. ProofRobust 14:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, scheduled passenger flight crashes at an airport and burns up meets longstanding notability standards on Wikipedia. The fact that it happened in a country where local news sources are not in English or online makes it more difficult to research an article, but does not change the underlying notability. The fact that the passengers were successfully evacuated without death does not make it non-notable. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tori Sparks#Record labels. ✗plicit 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Mountain Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP There were some quality sources cited, but upon careful inspection they turn out to have nothing to do with the article subject. There's no WP:SIRS established in any of the relevant sources included or with what I can find. Graywalls (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Tennessee. Graywalls (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. Chagropango (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Merge to Tori Sparks, the label's raison d'etre. This didn't need to come to AfD. Chubbles (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're looking at a target that looks like a resume like page of not so solid notability. Graywalls (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sensible thing to do is redirect unless and until Sparks is found non-notable. Chubbles (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tori Sparks#Record labels Joyous! | Talk 23:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tori Sparks#Record labels and Delete, as above. Nothing on this topic that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Kennedy[edit]

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

Article does not make any claims about this person being significant or important. Styx & Stones (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems she has gotten some significant coverage in major publications, including the Guardian, the New Yorker, and the German edition of Rolling Stone. This coverage mostly seems to be about the album, but the coverage does spend quite a bit of time talking about her background and her eclectic style. It also appears she won an award in Germany from something called the "Via awards." I don't know if this coverage is extensive enough to satisfy WP:SINGER. It seems to be borderline, but at the moment I would lean toward weak delete. Chagropango (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Styx & Stones: When you see reviews in places like in the Guardian, for example, which is a established newspaper its probably notable. If there is more than three newspapers of good standing, then it is definently notable. Look at social media also. Social Blade is a good way, particularly for new acts, if they're is many fans, its likely notable. Spotify is good and the other streamers, they can tell you if there is plenty of streaming. If there is, its likely notable. Looks at WP:MUSICRS, which is a list of reliable WP:RS sources. If you see in the articles references, that there is several reviews or stories in references, that is from one of the sites in WP:MUSICRS, then it is likely notable. Its a different criteria of search for old or really old bands, who may not be known in the modern era. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE - there are reviews of her collective body of work in e.g. The Guardian (2021), NPR (2021), AllMusic (2021), The New Yorker (2021), Pitchfork (2017), The Cut (2017), and she is profiled in The New Statesman (2021) and interviewed by Flood Magazine (2021) with secondary context and commentary about her background and style. Beccaynr (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as The Guardian, Rollingstone, AllMusic and others that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scottish Amateur Football Association. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lothian & Edinburgh Amateur Football Association[edit]

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

After sending a football club in this league to AfD, I decided to have a look at the league itself, I don't see anything on a google search to consider this is notable. I did "Lothian & Edinburgh Amateur Football Association" as a search string and only got five pages. Out of all of those pages I only saw one source which I liked and that was sponsorship. [21]. The rest, well, I see nothing than can contribute to general WP:GNG. There is a similar problem with the other Scottish Amateur league pages including; Midlands Amateur Football Association, Orkney Amateur Football Association, Perthshire Amateur Football Association, Shetland Football Association, Stirling & District Amateur Football Association, Strathclyde Amateur Football League and Uist & Barra Amateur Football Association. (There are more of these articles around than posted here). Where as we have created these amateur football league association pages, where all the information is acquired from one link which is a primary link. I am still confused why we have these articles when they don't even pass the basic level of our notability guidelines on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Scotland. AllyD (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scottish Amateur Football Association, possibly a new section on that article listing all the regional affiliated associations. Giant Snowman 21:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scottish Amateur Football Association: In general, I like the idea of deepening the coverage of associations and their transformations over time, but regarding this one, such coverage as I can find is about incidents at particular games involving associated clubs, not enough to demonstrate notability. GiantSnowman's proposal seems the best outcome. AllyD (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Gauya[edit]

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

Low-level Swiss singer created by a user whose only edits are on that page (possibly related?), does not meet WP:BIO & possibly WP:COI. JJLiu112 (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBIO, but if the article somehow passed NBIO, then I'd still say delete per WP:TNT. That formatting is something to behold. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's been around for a long time with widely scattered songs and albums, but I can find no reliable and significant media coverage of his career overall or for any of his releases. He is visible on a lot of typical streaming services and social media directories, which only indicates that he knows how to plaster his music across the Internet whether or not anyone else notices. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Campagnolo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fulcrum Wheels[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Seacactus 13 with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Cycling, and Italy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. While it has received coverage in many niche publications, I can find nothing about the company that would warrant having an article about it. However, since it is connected to Campagnolo it may be worth merging this content to that article. Chagropango (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Campagnolo. Have added the single source cited in this article to Campagnolo. Wikipedia Library search yields many articles mentioning "Fulcrum Wheels" / "Fulcrum wheels", but these mainly discuss the product rather than the subsidiary and thus does not satisfy WP:NCORP. Where the entity is discussed, it is mainly in the context of larger articles about Campagnolo's business strategy. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Campagnolo as per above, topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has had two relists and still there are comments about what can be done with this article. So, I'm closing this deletion discussion as No consensus and encourage interested editors to keep working to improve this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infocomm Clubs Programme[edit]

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

Non notable programme / activity in Singapore's education system. While the programme is available in the primary/secondary school levels, there is no SIGCOV or GNG for it. BEFORE been done with zero coverage in Singapore's newspaper archive, NewspaperSG. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Singapore. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree there is no SIGCOV for the programme. Found mentions in two books – Digital Review of Asia Pacific 2009-2010 and Singapore Perspectives 2007: A New Singapore – but they are just that, mentions. Also wondered if it was worth merging / incorporating content from this article into the page for Infocomm Media Development Authority, but that article also has problems, and looking at imda.gov.sg, it appears IMDA itself doesn't even discuss the Infocomm Clubs Programme much these days. (Understandably more novel and noteworthy when the initiative first launched, but by now it probably seems very standard.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This programme encompasses all of the Infocomm clubs in Singapore. Although searching "IMDA Infocomm Clubs programme" and similar search terms on Google, Google scholar, and newspaper archives may not yield many results, the name of the programme is not in itself representative of the programme. As described by a cabinet minister here:

Beginning with students, we are looking at a Student Infocomm Outreach Programme that brings the excitement of infocomm technology right into the schools. The establishment of Infocomm Clubs in primary and secondary schools, as well as junior colleges (JC) will be a start. Infocomm Clubs will be part of the Ministry of Education's Co-Curricular Activities or CCA, so students can earn CCA points by participating in the Club's activities [...] In three years' time, we expect more than 150 schools to offer the Infocomm Club programme.

Here, the minister uses the terms "Student Infocomm Outreach Programme" alongside "Infocomm Club programme", which exists apart from the official "Infocomm Clubs Programme" name. Although the term "Infocomm Clubs Programme" specifically may not yield results on Google, the overall programme by the IMDA with regard to Infocomm clubs in school has yielded significant coverage: here, here, and here. The article Educational policy and implementation of computational thinking and programming: Case study of Singapore discusses the Infocomm club policy in some detail. Searching "Infocomm club" generally on Google or Google Scholar will yield similarly many results. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and sources. I've struck my !Delete vote for now and will see if there is enough there to fix the article. (At least one of the sources looks lovely, but we probably need to draw the line somewhere – e.g., if an article doesn't explicitly identify with or call out "infocomm club", it may not be usable.) A further consideration is: Would the topic be better served as an article about "Infocomm club(s)" rather than about the overall programme? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dizzy (series). Stifle (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful Dizzy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. Ref 1 is a non-independent official website, ref 3 (Vintage the New World) has an amateur about us page with only two currently active writers, failing WP:RS requirements, whereas ref 4 has no info on editorial policies and staff, failing WP:RS. Ref 2 is debatably RS, there was a RSN discussion, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228#Flickering Myth, which ended inconclusively. However, it is a routine announcement providing a short two paragraph coverage of the newest Dizzy game, otherwise, it is a general overview of ZX Spectrum Next. My WP:BEFORE search found a routine announcement almost entirely quoted from a press release here (non-SIGCOV), review from Vintage is the New Old (non-RS), and an article here mainly covering mainly biographical information on Jarrod Bentley and only occasionally discusses the game (probably not SIGCOV). Update: Thanks for the news sources the article creator has provided. Unfortunately, this is yet another blog powered by Blogger, whereas this has an about us page but no editorial or correction policies. Sadly, IMO these fail WP:RS requirements. Therefore, IMO this should be redirected to Dizzy (series). VickKiang (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems to have coverage in gaming blog press [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Andre🚐 02:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: Thanks for your vote! However, this is debatably SIGCOV and mainly covers Jarrod, this is a Wordpress blog (non-RS), this also is a blog, its home page states blog archive. Do you think these meet reliability guidelines? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the first is mostly about the game and seems legit enough, I agree the latter three are bloggy and may not be reliable. Andre🚐 02:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Hmmm. The first ref looks decent, but it's mostly an image gallery, the text has 189 words, but if the press-release quotes is removed it's just 90 words, which IMHO isn't SIGCOV. Also could you find any discussions about Flickering Myth? I could only find one in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228. On reliability, here it's well regarded according to a listicle by Vuelio (an iffy source), but Flickering Myth describes itself as a film blog. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, based on that discussion and my glance over it seems reliable. Boing Boing is also reliable. Andre🚐 02:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. One source owned by Boing Boing is just situational per WP:VG/RS, past discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241 and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 259 with mixed consensus. Even if it's RS IMO it's non-SIGCOV but let's agree to disagree here. I think that in the discussio for Flickering Myth, just User:Darkknight2149 said it's RS, so the consensus is weak. Though, I disagree that both pieces are SIGCOV, but let's wait for more editors to join the discussion. Many thanks for your comments! VickKiang (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some refs can be replaced with these new sources 1 2... Lanzlink (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dizzy (series) is one of the most successful British video game franchises in history. This game is the latest official game in the series (after 28 years), and probably will be the last official game because Codemasters (trademark owner) being purchased by EA in 2021.1 So, the article is worth keeping for history's sake. This article also appropriate according to WP:NVIDEOGAMES...Lanzlink (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Lanzlink (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Weak keep or merge I saw the same sources as Andre. They might not be enough to qualify but it's a legitimate part of a notable series and should be covered somewhere. Archrogue (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the series page. I generally consider a game having reviews the bar it has to pass unless it's an art game or has some other extenuating circumstance. It's definitely worthy of mention in the series page, but seems to lack notability for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the series page, notability is not inherited, and there isn't enough in-depth coverage about this to pass GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found more coverages and reviews. Some of those websites can be considered RS...

Coverage - 1

Reviews - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Lanzlink (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: @Onel5969: @Zxcvbnm: @Archrogue: Lanzlink, thank you for the refs. I've addressed ref 3- Vintage is the World- as a non-RS. Unfortunately, I couldn't find editorial policies for the new linked sites showing a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. However, for the pinged users- if the authors are subject-matter-experts, or if the sites are acceptable per WP:USEBYOTHERS, could you please ping me? If you all agree to keep this I can withdraw the nomination, though I'm standing by it now, many thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment aaudio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources per WP:RS.

So, here some other coverages in video and audio format that can be considered RS... - 1/1 - 2 - 3 Lanzlink (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unreliable show, the podcaster is non a subject-matter-expert, and the original site has no editorial policies. This also appears to be amateur-like, though they are reviewed by The Guardian. Therefore, this audio-format site might be RS. The third one is a YouTube channel, which is too insufficient. Though, given these reviews and video/audio format ones I'm at weak redirect (updated) instead. VickKiang (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am leaning more merge now just because this is a verifiable part of a series. The weak keep is based on WP:POTENTIAL. But I agreed with Andre that a lot of the reviewers are unreliable blogs. Archrogue (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Reviews are the bare minimum and if the game doesn't have that then it shouldn't have an article. I suppose it can be mentioned at the series page. Jontesta (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to relist this but I'm seeing a Weak Delete, Weak Keeps and several Redirects along with arguments for those opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dizzy (series) as mentioned. While on the surface the article looks sourced enough, upon more detailed inspection you can notice that references are either of dubious notability or just not significant enough for a WP:GNG pass. #1 is a quotation + WP:ROUTINE announcement coverage, #2 a WP:PRIMARY podcast interview, #3 a passing mention, #4 seems among the most reliable sources but the coverage is dedicated to Jarrod Bentley instead of the game, #5 WP:ROUTINE release coverage and written by "Paulo" (this applies to #10), who appears to be a programmer rather than an actual video games journalist. #6 looks good from the coverage level but seems to be a blog, #7 a WP:PRIMARY official website, #8 coming from a dubious webstore, #11 it says "The post was published in iXBT.com blogs, its author is not related to iXBT.com editors" and #12 is a forum. #9 is in my opinion probably the best salvageable source. VickKiang's arguments about the sources Andre posted are correct and Lanzlink posted sources in the article I've already discussed here + more podcast interviews which are WP:PRIMARY sources. My searches bring up little to add on this. All in all, just not enough, but it's still worthy to WP:PRESERVE the redirect to the main series article as an alternative to deletion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady of Mato Grosso do Sul[edit]

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

I am taking this to AFD as I think PROD will be contested. I think this title is not notable enough per WP:GNG. While the governors of Brazilian states are notable, I do not think their wives are automatically notable. Being the first lady of Mato Grosso do Sul have no special notability when compared to other first ladies from other states. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, South America, and Brazil. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is effectively an honorary title, none of the holders are of themselves notable and fails WP:GNG. W C M_email 23:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources indicate the title is in use, see here or here (both in Portuguese) show that the term "First Lady of XXX" is in common use for states of Brazil. Wikipedia does not require that individual entries on a list be all notable, merely that the subject of the list is a real thing, and the First Lady of various Brazilian states is. --Jayron 32 18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly should be moved to List of first ladies of Mato Grosso do Sul. As Jayron32 noted, the title primeiras-damas de Mato Grosso do Sul is in use and found in media coverage of the office holder. The individual first lady may not meet the bar of GNG, but the office should clear it for a list article like this. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I understand the keep !votes, I am not persuaded that this title meets the conditions as per WP:NLIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 13:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Connecticut Party (2021)[edit]

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

Hyper-local minor party which failed to win any seats in its election. Some minor buzz in local media due to its name, but this party is just not notable. Thoroughly fails WP:GNG, and is just a local oddity due to it hijacking the name of a long-dead party.

A side note, there has been a concerted effort to hijack the original and notable A Connecticut Party article to soapbox for this party (not by Scu ba, who has been a genuine good-faith editor here, but by others, including some affiliated with the party). At best, this should be a minor one-sentence mention on the actual party's article. Curbon7 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Connecticut. Curbon7 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this grievance, its just that I didn't want to talk about the new party on the old parties page. Maybe we should wait to delete this page until after the next election. Scu ba (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning elections is not a requirement to meet WP:GNG, and I'm seeing reliable source coverage about the party and its history. Hartford Courant, CT Insider, and NBC are all scrupulously reliable sources, already cited in the article. --Jayron 32 18:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all ~~WP:LOCAL~~ local news sources, perpetuating the statement that this is little more than a local curiosity. Of course something that is locally newsworthy is going to get coverage in local press. That doesn't necessarily translate to notability in a global encyclopedia. Curbon7 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That essay says nothing about local news sources being inappropriate for notability. Literally nothing at all. If you're going to cite an essay, you could at least do so in a way that doesn't misrepresent what it says. --Jayron 32 12:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken, didn't mean to mislead; but the rest of the statement still stands. Of course local news sources are going to cover local topics. That doesn't necessarily translate to WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? GNG states, in full, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A source is not unreliable because its focus is narrow in scope or geography. Reliability has to do with fact checking, editorial control, willingness to correct mistakes, and for general reputation in its field. At no time does GNG say anything about local news being inherently unreliable, or really any less reliable than news sources that cover a broader geography as its consumer base. The entire WP:N page doesn't even mention the word "local" once. Furthermore, WP:RS wikipedia guideline on reliability of sources, makes literally no mention that a source's reliability is under suspicion merely due to the geography of its coverage. None. The word "local" shows up once on that guideline page, and it has to do with the "local whitelist" used to bypass deprecated sources. Nothing at all saying "you can't trust local news". --Jayron 32 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common outcome at AfD that local news coverage generally does not contribute to a subject meeting GNG. This is because local news covers local topics; the two-bit city councilman, the restaurant down the block, a new business, etc. This coverage may be significant, but it is generally routine. This is not a knock on the reliability of local news media, heck one of my GAs is constructed almost entirely on local news sources. What I see here is a local party with a quirky name getting coverage due to its part in a local election.

Additionally, while I do agree with Trainsandotherthings below regarding the Hartford Courant source in general, it actually hardly mentions the party and I don't think provides WP:SIGCOV even in a normal situation (most of the article is comprised of quotes by the founder and a history of the previous iteration with very little about the party). This CT Insider source is similar in ; same with NBC Connecticut. Curbon7 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant is a major newspaper, and I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss it as "local". If it had shown up in the local section of the Courant, known as "Courant Community" I might agree with you, but that isn't the case. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, at least. Curbon7 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect. to A Connecticut Party (1990) (which mentions the unrelated 2021 party). With the way Connecticut law works, this party is not able to expand outside of West Hartford (because it solely exists on the municipal level). We don't have articles on any of the other ~350 municipal political parties that exist in the state despite many of them having similar (if not more) coverage. While I understand that 338 of them are just local branches of the two larger parties, some of them aren't.
It just doesn't make sense is all I'm saying. We traditionally don't have pages about municipal parties except in some pretty notable circumstances (ie. Charter Committee, Chicago Socialist Party, etc.), and I don't know if this situation is at all comparable. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could make a new page thats something like List of municipal parties in Connecticut and list these parties with a brief notes section and move the A Connecticut Party (2021) there as a redirect? Scu ba (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu ba: I would very much support that and would be willing to help draft if you got that started. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a redirect or merge of this article, but unsure on a target right now. Don't think it meets GNG by itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails GNG. To the one keep vote, the sources provided are local in nature and thus WP:AUD applies here. I do not feel a redirect as proposed is appropriate per WP:XY. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Presidentman. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Presidentman. What coverage there is hyper-local and it fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Two relists and almost a month on AFD hasn't brought forward any more contributions, and I decline to relist further. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I and Thou (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:MUSIC. The only notability claim apparent here is that their album exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, and the referencing is a mixture of primary sources and blogs or webzines that aren't clearly WP:GNG-worthy -- and the article has been flagged for notability issues since 2014 without ever seeing any significant improvement. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 6 of WP:BAND; which was pointed out in the first AFD. There are a few by-lined independent reviews in e-zines and magazines already in the article. These sources have editorial oversight, so I am not seeing a strong argument for why they wouldn't count towards WP:SIGCOV. In my opinion the tag should have been removed after the first AFD was closed, and could be removed now (or at least at the close of this second AFD if it is kept). 4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ezines are not reliable or notability-supporting sources. What I see in the article is as follows: #1, unrecoverable dead link from an unreliable source. #2, primary source. #3, deadlinked but claimed to have been a Q&A interview with one of the band members. #4, directory entry. #5, deadlinked but again claimed to have been a Q&A interview with one of the band members. #6, unlinked and impossible to verify what it was or how substantive it is or isn't (which isn't necessarily fatal all by itself, but becomes a much bigger problem given how bad all of the other sources are.) #7, unreliable source. #8, deadlink from an unreliable source. #9, unreliable source. This isn't GNG-making coverage, at all, and a no-consensus closure in 2014 (when both our notability and sourcing standards were utter trash compared to what they are now) is not convincing evidence to the contrary. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is in fact not true, as many e-zines have passed and been approved as RS by the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and are endorsed as RS by Wikipedia:WikiProject Music and the related sub projects. In general we consider e-zines as sig cov towards meeting WP:GNG based upon their editorial policies/process. From what I saw, many of these e-zines have editorial review and should be considered significant independent coverage. So I think you are dismissing sources that shouldn't be dismissed, and would likely pass an RS noticeboard review. Labeling a bylined independent review in an e-zine with editorial oversight as "unreliable" is not an accurate or fair assessment of the source. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the sources seem to be reviews. I'm personally having doubts based on notability so far, and while I agree with 4meter4 that e-zines can be used for notability in general, not all e-zines are qual, and there should be some more coverage from other types of sources. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madhava Chandra[edit]

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

AFD as PROD is contested. Per WP:NPOL, being an ambassador does not confer any notability. Outside his diplomatic job, he didn't show any other notability, failing WP:SIGCOV. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any news about him I think he is not a notable person. Contributor008 (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete There are no secondary sources on this page on the basis of which this page can be called notable Facebook link is not recognized on Wikipedia WP:RSP. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC) strike sockpuppet !vote --bonadea contributions talk 13:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He served as the Ambassador of India to multiple countries, so he certainly is notable. RioCap1 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete There is no such deep coverage on the basis of which can be called notable Person. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock Beccaynr (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Yandeńo (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 05:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Hasim Mithiborwala[edit]

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

Contested draftification. Fails WP:NACTOR. Multiple references, but none verify notability 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Gujarat. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 06:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Ademi[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable, irrelevant, illiterate nonsense. MurrayGreshler (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone -- this article was created in 2014 in Russian by an editor who created one other article, Janysh Kulmambetov, then disappeared forever. I worked my a** off to make the Kulmambetov article, to which I am willing to grant a measure of borderline notability, somewhat comprehensible in English. I tried the same with Theatre Ademi but its inherent lack of notability caused me to give up shortly and nominate it here. MurrayGreshler (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a response a good deal more civil than that it was a reply to. I still think illiterate is unkind, though. TheLongTone (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Kyrgyzstan. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Non-notable is a reason for deletion: I've no opinion here since I am not qualified to assess the sources. Irrelevant is opinionated tosh. I don't think anything to do with kick-the-ball relevant, but am aware that I'm very much in a minority here. Illiterate.... well, I'd cast doubts upon the nominators coomand of the English language here; the article is clearly written by somebody who is not a native English speaker. Which is no reason to be sniffy: it's a reason to indulge in a bit of benevolent copyediting. And nonsense... I understood it. TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All but two of the references do not work, and those two do not demonstrate significant coverage of the company. This appears to be a touring troupe that performs in schools and has only produced about one work per year. The article claims that the company has released films, but no evidence has given that it has done so or that any such films are noteworthy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChicagoPride.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced and semi-advertorialized article about a web publication. As always, websites aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but this is completely unsourced, and has been tagged for advertorialism issues since 2013 without ever being toned down, and in fact has been toned up if anything. The first discussion from ten years ago is also not definitive; our notability and sourcing standards in 2022 are tighter than they were a decade ago, and even on the "Google Books" search that was proffered as a reason to keep in 2013, I'm not finding GNG-worthy content about the website so much as I'm finding directory entries for the website. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have any real sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Websites, and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly written article, reads like an advertisement. Doesn't meet WP:WEBCRIT. Google Books results in sources that provide trivial coverage. Couldn't find any sources in other locations that meet GNG. ProofRobust 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this website is notable and I cannot find press sources for it to make the article better. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It seems like the primary area of dispute has to do with the statement that this is an "official flag". I see a consensus of Keeping this article and I have removed any trace of mention that this is an official flag from the article. This is a flag used by organized groups for their own use and embodying the symbolism they have embued the flag with. But it doesn't recognized an official recognized country or territory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Hazaristan[edit]

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

Hazarajat doesn't have an official flag. This is a proposed flag however this has not been officially accepted as the flag of Hazarajat. Recommend adding a section in the article about this proposed flag. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 04:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 04:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The verb proposed is added to the article now. Several references were also added confirming that the flag is widely accepted and is being used by the Hazaras and their well-known respective organizations during protests and ceremonies across the globe. This shows the generation of a public consensus regarding the current flag.

Since Hazaristan is not independent and has not any state, or parliament, and cannot have a referendum, talking about official acceptance from that perspective is not relevant here. Basirahang2 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the request for speedy deletion does not point to any criteria for speedy deletion. Basirahang2 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More references from various sources are added now verifying that many Hazaras and their popular community organizations use the flag of Hazaristan. It is also important to mention that many other Hazara organizations and communities also use the flag of Hazaristan. Many of them, do not have an official website but accounts on social media. Worldresident (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Delete~~ If Hazarajat has no way of formalising it and the flag has no history, calling it Flag of Hazaraistan without it being officially adapted implies that it is the official flag which is incorrect. The article does not cite any reliable, published source saying this is the flag of Hazarajat. It also violates the No original research policy. Thus, I recommend deleting this article and adding a Proposed Flag section in Hazarajat article for now, once officially adapted a new article could be created. I could also suggested renaming this article Proposed flag of Hazarajat article, however, not sure it would qualify for an article under that title. :Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 00:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion nomination counts as your "Delete" vote. You can't vote twice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree! Why?

First, this opinion-based delegation request does not point to any criteria for speedy deletion, which is necessary to consider the request.

Second, as said here and mentioned in the article, many Hazaras and well-known Hazara organizations like the Hazara National Congress, the Munich Hazara Association, Brisbane's Hazara Community, and the Hazara Council of Great Britain are already using this flag in their protests, events, and gatherings. It generated a public consensus and agreement regarding the flag of Hazaristan. Many references from different sources are added to the article to confirm the flag's usage among the Hazaras and their organizations. Many more can be added if necessary, but a Wikipedia article is not a reference collection. It does not need to have a long list of references. Just verifying a fact from different sources should be good enough.

Third, not having a state, parliament, or referendum does not mean that the people of Hazaristan should not have a flag, and here not having a separate article for their flag.

Let us consider this opinion-based delegation request to delete the article Flag of Hazaristan. Then many other articles, including those under Category: Flags of indigenous peoples, should be deleted, as from that perspective, many indigenous peoples and nations have no state or parliament to formalize their symbols, including their flags.

A short section about the flag under the Hazaristan/Hazarajat article and a link to the article flag of Hazaristan is definitely necessary.

Forth, a flag is a symbol, and it is about a process of acceptance among people by using it in their gatherings and events, like what the Hazaras are doing, rather than making and formalizing it overnight. I suggest reading more about the flags and symbols, including the history of flags belonging to state nations, indigenous peoples, and stateless nations that are members of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization or not. Worldresident (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not speedy deletion, it is up for discussion whether to delete or not. The discussion is not who is using it, it is the name Flag of Hazaristan which implies it is the flag of Hazarajat which is incorrect. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 01:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When the Hazaras and their well-known organizations are using this flag as the flag of their homeland Hazaristan, then why should we not respect them and not write as it is? Here, Wikipedia is not a place to push personal opinions but to write an encyclopedia. This article should stay, and for sure, there is always room for improvement. Worldresident (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flag usage is very important as it tells us about the public consensus. Inside the article, there are many links to different sources, here, I put some from social media.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Worldresident (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing my bit for Wikipedia, please avoid personal attacks. This clearly violates a few policies, mainly the No original research. Maybe add couple of reliable, published sources that says it is the flag of Hazarajat. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 23:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
of course, no personal attack, and I didn't it before, and will not in the future.

I think I don't need to repeat over and over that the Hazaras and their organizations are already using the flag of Hazaristan and there are already many references added to the article confirming this. We are not here to judge people on why they are having and using a flag before having a state, parliament, or referendum.

I think, there is no more to add to this deletion discussion page for now. I hope an administrator can look at it as soon as possible.

And again, the article Flag of Hazaristan should have remained and of course, as always, there should be room for improvement and update. Worldresident (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article Flag of Hazaristan!

Also added the following new research as a new reference to the article:

Deconstructing Afghan Historiography: A Case Study of Hazara History Writing

Two popular and old Hazaragi websites Hazara.net and Hazara International, which are explained as key “social spaces for engagement with Hazara historiography,” are analysis focuses. In this research, the flag of Hazaristan has been mentioned as an element/factor besides others contributing in deconstructing Afghan Historiography.

Both websites use the flag (for instance, hazara.net: 1, 2, Hazara International 1, 2), and the researcher mentioned that one of them has a special page for that. Worldresident (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hazara International and Hazara.net are Hazara owned and operated websites that can be considered biased. The sources should include independent sources with reputation for fact checking, accuracy and should prevent bias. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 00:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Flag of Hazaristan is already contains links to various types of resources including peer reviewed research article/s, news coverage of mainstream media in different countries and languages as well as links to the official websites of several Hazara organizations, confirming and verifying the fact that the Hazaras have a flag called the flag of Hazaristan. Based on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, I avoided adding any User-generated content even though many Hazara and non-Hazara organizations do not still have websites and they post news, videos, and photo stories on social media like Facebook or Twitter. When it comes to reliability and being biased or unbiased, I refer to the section, Biased or opinionated sources of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

Beyond that, I think, if there are significant disagreements, critiques, or reactions, it might be helpful to add a new section, called for instance Reactions. Following the recent news and reactions to the extensive usage of the Hazaristan flag, some non-Hazara groups and figures like Gulbuddin Hikmatyar or Sayed Isa Hussaini Mazari strongly reacted. Those reactions if become more, that new section might be helpful. Worldresident (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer at two sources, hazara.net and Hazara International, both seem to be the source of several research papers, here, here, here, and here. And both are sources of the Human Rights Watch's report "We are the Walking Dead." Those are besides the brand new peer-reviewed research Deconstructing Afghan Historiography: A Case Study of Hazara History Writing which has a special focus on both sources.

That means not easy say that they are not reliable sources. Worldresident (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is known for being controlled by States and apparently the Taliban or the Afghan establishment have forced you to delete this flag. You can delete anything you don't like but then don't claim to be a legitimate source of information. Every Hazara is in favor of this flag. So don't cancel people's flag! No flag in the world has 100% support among the people. So probably a genocidal maniac is trying to fool Wikipedia to remove this flag and make people in the world believe Hazaras don't exist just like they have tried for more than one century. 62.240.134.36 (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ the article Flag of Hazaristan.

The article is supported by many references and various types of resources. I don’t see any reason to delete this article.

It was first argued that Hazaristan has no such official flag. More references added to the article verifying that the Hazara and their respective organizations are extensively use that flag, and if by officiality means a state, parliament or referendum should be there to verify it, then many flag articles particularly those belong to stateless nations and native people also should be deleted. And of course, such a thing might not be logical and fair.

Then argued that there are no reliable sources. While there were already many, more references from mainstream media covering the news related to Hazara gatherings using their flag. Here is another one from yesterday.

Here I also added several links to public posts on social media showing how the Hazaras have and use their flag. I know, social media are normally not considered as reliable sources, but it is wise to look to have a better picture. Here is for instance one new post from a new gathering of Hazaras using their flag.

As mentioned, it’s always room for improvement and update. Worldresident (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can only "vote" once so I'm striking your second vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to No original research. Your new source from Afghanistan International is very clear example of original research. There's absolutely no mention of the flag however it does have an image of the demonstrators who are holding a flag. Now you are implying a conclusion that just because it was used in a demo it is the flag of Hazarajat, for this specific reason the No original research policy exists. None of the independent, reliable published sources talk about the flag. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 01:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can assure there are no Taliban on the Wikipedia board, nor are there any as editors. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So far, the participants have made their opinions known. Please allow room for other editors to participate in the discussion. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep and improve. A symbol does not need to be an official national flag to be included in Wikipedia. I would suggest noting up front in the lede that this is an unofficial flag, however. BD2412 T 14:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though are we even !voting on deletion? The nomination seems to suggest improvement, not deletion. In any case it is not necessary for there to be an agreed/official flag in order for the topic of the flag to be worthwhile and notable if supported by sources, as this appears to be. Thparkth (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in West Bengal[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable schools, and this article consists of nothing more than that and a spammy descriptions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Muhandes (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Lists, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John DeVae[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Devae

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

Article about former soccer player which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Article was previously kept via a no consensus outcome at AfD in 2009. At the time, no WP:SIGCOV was identified, and many years later no additional sources have been identified in the article nor through my BEFORE searches (this routine signing announcement was the best coverage I could find, but it is not remotely close to meeting the GNG). Jogurney (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found minimal coverage. Not close to meeting WP:GNG. JojoMN1987 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Firewall (film). Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Forte[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously at AFD last year in an interesting AFD that saw substantial participation from the article subject and an AFD closure by a sockpuppet of Expertwikiguy. In my BEFORE search, I found passing mentions and even going to Forte's own website, to the Press section, found very few articles of substance. During my search for Joe Forte, I primarily found references to a basketball player with the same name, Joseph Forte. I'm suggesting that this page be redirected to Firewall (film), his only major success that, unfortunately, got poor reviews.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Artists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Firewall (film). I remember this from the first go-around at AfD. (If I recall, I had !voted to d*lete, then changed the !vote to M*rge with Firewall. Perhaps redirection is a better option? Mr. Forte is not notable on his own, but the film apparently is. Netherzone (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about this person, there's an artist in Cambridge that has the same name that gets more hits than this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Firewall (film) per nominator. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Firewall (film) per nom. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think the more complicated discussion over possible mergers or moving of content between the two articles is an editing decision, not a deletion decision, that can occur among interested parties on the article talk pages. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skinner Building (Seattle)[edit]

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

This article duplicates coverage of the building in 5th Avenue Theatre and should redirect there. There is no reason for a separate stub that adds nothing that article. This is commonly done with other historic buildings. MB 04:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Washington. MB 04:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most newspaper results only discuss the building in concert with the theater, and there's not much that can be said that can't be integrated into the theater article. Sounder Bruce 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article has been sufficiently expanded with content that is not solely about the theater, thus demonstrating notability. Sounder Bruce 06:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to 5th Avenue Theatre, with info that is not duplicated, leaving categories on redirect page, so as to keep name of building in them for navigational purposes. Djflem (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Djflem, the Skinner Building (Seattle) article has expanded significantly since the initial nomination, would you re-evaluate? Cielquiparle (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:HEY and recasting of this article and focus of both. Generally like incorporation of NRHP sites/districts into one larger article to give context, but here two make sense. Djflem (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (disclaimer: article creator). The Skinner Building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The theatre is part of the building but they are not synonymous. Details about the theatre belong at 5th Avenue Theatre; all other details about the building should live here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see no reason why there should be separate articles for the building and the theater in the building. 5th_Avenue_Theatre#Architecture and 5th_Avenue_Theatre#History cover information about the building's various aspects and splitting this to another page does not serve readers. The NRHP nomination describes the exterior, interior, and theater space of the "Skinner Building (Fifth Avenue Theatre)" (presenting them synonomously) so it should all be described in one place here. Nothing about the building is notable if the theater it was built to hold is excluded. Reywas92^Talk 08:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume all sources cover the building and theatre as one because they don't. I've expanded the article with plenty of content which has nothing to do with the theatre. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep anything listed on the NRHP is notable. Should be easy to pull the nomination documents and write up a full article about this place. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, of course the building is notable. The issue is why have a separate article. It is already covered in 5th Avenue Theatre and the normal procedure is to propose a WP:SPLIT if an article gets too big. This is just an unnecessary WP:CFORK. MB 18:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split would be great. Having a single entry covering the NRHP site, the theatre within, and its production history seems like a lot, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A merge sounds fine, so long as the information is clearly laid out in the target article, confirming that the two listings are distinct entities. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Two listings"? The place is listed on the National Register as "Skinner Building" with alternate name "Fifth Avenue Theatre". It is just one listing on the National Register, and the significance noted in the nomination is about both interior and exterior, though more about the interior. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak merge~~Keep If there is no significant historical description of other occupants of the building, merging seems appropriate. The current theater article has no discussion of the building's exterior architecture, or any of its other tenants. Should such materials be available sufficient to meaningfully expand this stub, a merge might seem out of place. Magic♪piano 18:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Magicpiano Right, the 5th Avenue Theatre article has minimal information about the building as a whole. I'm trying to expand the building article as I have time. I'm confident there's more to add about the exterior design, tenants, reception, etc. I invite you to revisit later to see if your 'weak merge' can be changed to a simple 'comment' or even 'keep' :) Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magicpiano: I believe such sufficient information has been located, would you reevaluate? $ɱ$ (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much improved. Magic♪piano 22:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if there is actually any substantially new/different info in the new article, otherwise "Redirect"). No apparent reason to split; the article about the theatre (and its building) has existed since 2006 and is nicely developed as a complete discussion. The NRHP nomination was in 1979(?) and describes the building's importance primarily as the theater (the interior). Sure, the building's exterior is also described, but if there are any fragments of info about the exterior not already covered in the previously existing article, they can certainly be accommodated there. Note: being listed on the National Register does not equate to "wikipedia must have a separate article", and the NRHP listing (and reasons for it being listed) was already covered in the previously existing article. Duplicating does not help readers. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If ? This doesn't need to be a hypothetical. You can actually review the content of the current article and sources. You say the 5th Avenue Theatre entry "is nicely developed as a complete discussion" but clearly that's not true. I've found lots of details about the building which have nothing to do with the theatre, and there's more to add about changes to the building, tenants, the chimes, etc. Are you suggesting all of these details should be folded into the 5th Avenue Theatre entry, which is already decently long despite being mostly focused on the theatre? Asking for clarification. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To others, FYI, the 5th Avenue Theatre article has been edited back and forth by Another Believer and myself. I edited a bit to this version which IMHO properly leads off "The 5th Avenue Theatre, also known as the Skinner Building, is.... I believed I was restoring its narration to be about whole thing, stating that the NRHP listing is for "Skinner Building / 5th Avenue Theatre" which it is, and that it was designed, inside and out, by architect Robert Reamer. Another Believer edited it to this version basically towards dividing coverage between two articles because that is what they prefer, including saying that Robert Reamer designed the interior theater (and omitting that he designed the exterior and all the rest of the building). I am leaving it now in Another Believer's preferred presentation, but I do think one article easily accommodates presentation of the unified full thing, designed by one architect, notable and NRHP-listed for being one unified thing. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: My issue is the 5th Avenue Theatre is not "also known as" the Skinner Building (I understand how the NRHP nomination has listed these together, but many sources consider the theatre a part of the building). The theatre article is very focused on the theatre (rightly so) and says almost nothing about the rest of the building. I've drafted an article about the rest of the building, and there's more to add. You've made your position clear and I respect your opinion, but I'm asking, do you think the content I've drafted could be folded into the existing theatre article in a way that's not confusing to readers and/or too long to navigate? I'm asking so I have a better understanding of how a merge can move forward, not because I'm trying to change your mind here. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Strong notability of architect, architecture, prominent streetfront, and building history outside of the theater portion. The theater is just one tenant of NRHP-listed structure. Enough sourcing and content exists to make this article viable. $ɱ$ (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building is notable and this article looks nothing like the article for the 5th Avenue Theatre and the content definitely would not belong there: the radio station (esp. KOMO), the Chimes, I. Magnin, Brooks Brothers, the major earthquake retrofit, etc. Interested in seeing more discussion of the role of the Skinner Building as one of the Fifth Avenue "anchors" as the downtown shopping destination until the the locus shifted to Nordstrom/Westlake/Pacific Place (i.e., not just the building but the context). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, the building seems much more than a theater, and deleting it (I think the term "merge", in the vast majority of cases, is another, nicer, and more polite name for "delete") would do nothing more than lose Wikipedia an adequate encyclopedic page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at AXA x WONDERLAND[edit]

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

Article for the venue itself doesn't exist, also appears to be WP:SYNTH Sungodtemple (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete There's a brief mention of it in West Kowloon Cultural District, but that article states that it didn't get this name until this year. I don't see the events as notable so I'm not convinced this list has value. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that we need a complete list of events at any entertainment venue, although there are other such lists in Wikipedia. But this venue doesn't even have an article of its own yet; it just has a small subsection in West Kowloon Cultural District. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As I stated in the prod, Wikipedia is not a calendar of events for venues. If this were a festival listing, that would be different and more specific. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article being about a venue that doesn't have a wikipedia article usually doesn't bode well. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Improvements to the article, if any, should be made in order to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaomanyc[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not adequately sourced as passing our notability criteria for YouTubers. The article, as written, only just barely goes any further than "YouTuber who exists", and details absolutely no substantive accomplishments that would constitute meaningful notability claims -- and it's referenced to just two footnotes, both of which feature him doing the speaking about other things, instead of being the subject of coverage written by other people as WP:GNG actually requires.
And even on a Google News search for other sourcing, I still just find a lot of sources in which Xiaoma does the speaking about other subjects, and few to no sources in which other people are analyzing the significance of Xioma's work in the third person.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sourcing and substance than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these sources from The Independent/Indy100, The Indian Express, The Daily Dot, Newsweek and ComicBook should be enough to establish Xiaomanyc's notability per WP:BASIC and, as a YouTuber, WP:WEB as well.

Also Bearcat, I have to disagree that the sources you, presumably, already found on Google News merely just quote his videos or don't analyze their significance in some way. If anything, these sources I pointed out are definitely in line with typical secondary sources that cite "primary sources for their material" (such as his videos) and make "analytic or evaluative claims about them." While these sources do cite material from him and his own videos directly, it's clear that they're treated less like primary, non-third-party sources (as in, the writer of the source was a primary witness to the video and/or affiliate of Xiaomanyc) but more along the lines of play-by-play summaries of his videos with evaluative claims, synthesis and facts that demonstrate his importance as a popular polyglot YouTuber.

For example, The Independent summarizes his video about spending $1k in tips at Chinatown restaurants while also contextualizing the video in relation to the COVID pandemic's effects on Chinese businesses. The Indian Express and The Daily Dot also wrote extensively about his videos - the former source discusses in detail a similar video where he experiences Bangladesh culture while speaking the language fluently, and the latter speaking fluent Mandarin to the surprise of the locals. These three sources serve as detailed summaries of his work per WP:WEB, in that the nature of his videos were covered in-depth - not just a simple "watch this cool video" style of routine coverage, but full-length articles from news outlets who found the videos interesting. It's similar to reviews of a web series, TV episodes and books.

Finally, these sources also point out significant facts about him as a YouTuber - such as his subscribers and views, him being a polyglot and the languages he speaks fluently, and how his life as a polyglot has received astonishment by various cultures. His life as a polyglot is the unusual trait about him that the world at large - namely reliable sources - have pointed out. He's a notable YouTuber; keep this article and revise with these sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Daily Dot and~~ Newsweek aren't reliable sources, the rest are. Sorry, here's the generally accepted list we can consult [27]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because none of the sources cited are IMHO good sources. Newsweek in particular is now junk. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Besides Newsweek and Comicbook, all of the listed sources are reliable per WP:RSPSS, and Newsweek is only considered situationally reliable, not unreliable. Also, citing an essay you wrote that hasn't been properly vetted by the WP community isn't exactly valid reasoning. His work HAS been noted by reliable secondary sources, and as a content creator, that proves his notability per WP:WEB. 2601:645:C100:6480:74CC:1014:5E5E:81C1 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My essay is based in turn on Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability, which is generally accepted. To quote that essay, "However, in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT." Bearian (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. In that regard, The Independent, The Indian Express, The Daily Dot and the EuroNews sources should still be enough to pass GNG. The latter article is over 500 words which is definitely above a trivial mention, and it details background info on him as a person/polyglot YouTuber. 2601:645:C100:6480:74CC:1014:5E5E:81C1 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think he fails my standards for YouTubers. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be "in-depth" when it comes to WP:SIGCOV, besides obvious one-sentence mentions? Because from my interpretation of GNG, all of them do cover his videos extensively, by quantity (word count - multiple paragraphs dedicated to the subject/his videos) and quality (significance). If you're trying to argue that they don't count for his notability because they focus more on his videos than on him (which IMO isn't really valid for deletion - of course people who make videos will have sources discuss their videos), the current revision also has a EuroNews article solely about him as well.

Also just to clarify, this is PantheonRadiance replying to the thread outside of my account. 2601:645:C100:6480:74CC:1014:5E5E:81C1 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PC Gamer source seems solid. I can't access the Indian Express or the Independent, they look ok. Rest seem to push him past GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if a consensus can emerge over the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources identified in this discussion are enough to meet WP:GNG; nothing else needs to be considered. Thparkth (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a feature in The Paper which discusses a video by Smith and talks a bit about his life (e.g., how he got interested in Chinese): 江南、新约客 (2021-03-05). "一个犹太人在唐人街发红包_澎湃号·湃客_澎湃新闻". The Paper (in Chinese). Not sure about adding this source to the article myself. Best, Bridget (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These also might be useful: article from the Asia Society and an incident during a plane trip covered by Business Insider (albeit likely trivial personal details). Best, Bridget (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mystia (Video Game Series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Current refs include official pages which are not independent, including the first two refs from G-Mode, which are also non-independent as the game series was distributed by G-Mode. Refs 3 and 4 are Wikipedia (non-reliable) and Twitter (also non-RS). A WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions while discussing the G-Mode Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 failing WP:SIGCOV, the only longer coverage is 4 Gamer Net, though that is non-SIGCOV as it's a press release/routine announcement indicated by The following is the content of the manufacturer's announcement as it is as per the Google translated version, it is only a basic summary of the plot and characters but has little critical commentary. The Japanese version is no better, almost entirely sourced from G-Mode refs (non-independent). VickKiang (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ Less than 24 hours has passed since article creation. Premature Deletion Nomination. No obvious COI or Advertising. If needed, potential draftify. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Less than 24 hours has passed since article creation. Premature Deletion Nomination. No obvious COI or Advertising. If needed, potential draftify- how is this procedure allowed per WP:NPP inappropriate? VickKiang (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PerryPerryD: Per the WP:SPEEDYKEEP rationales, criteria 1, 4, 5, or 6 are inapplicable, do you think The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion, and that I am vandalising or disrupting the encyclopedia through this? Alternatively, The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided- I'd be inclined if you can explain what "completely erroneous" mistake I made. VickKiang (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it would be a regular keep then. So far your rationale is lack of notability, when the article hasnt had enough time for sources to be found. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far your rationale is lack of notability, when the article hasnt had enough time for sources to be found- could you demonstrate sources rather than this presumption that somehow my WP:BEFORE search is inadequate? WP:NPP states that: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more- I tagged 50 minutes after, I'd be interested that you could explain how this deletion violates these guidelines. For instance, based on your rationale NPP should not CSD or PROD new articles until 24 hours after its creation? Of course, if you could demonstrate more sources I'm willing to withdraw my nomination, but so far I'm confused that without any more refs or source analysis you would vote keep because of how long I waited to AfD the article. VickKiang (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware you performeed a before search for sources. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions while discussing the G-Mode Archives... in my AfD nom. VickKiang (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Im starting to question my own ability to read. I apologize for this. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify in order to allow time for improvement. May have the potential to be proven notable if more-in depth Japanese language sources can be found, but it is not ready for the mainspace in this state. silvia (inquire within) 12:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to allow for improvement from Japanese language sources. Archrogue (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It has been shown that several of the sources do not establish notability and are probably hindering the creation and maintenance of an NPOV article. Other sources seem to Indicate that GNG is met, although consensus is not strong here, therefore I discern no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OtakuKart[edit]

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

I'm confused on this. CSD has been recently declined and I agree with that. Some sources have disclaimers while others are overwhelmingly promotional but in general significant coverage in multiple reliable sources should help it pass GNG. However, similar details come in several sources. Deccan Chronicle source says, "No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content." Could other volunteer editors help me in this? Do these disclaimers mean that there is WP:UPE involved with this submission? Comments please. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, India, and Gujarat. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipage has enough citations from relevant news sources. It also played important role in the Indian Anime Movement, and there are citations from BWBusinessWorld & AnimationXpress for the same. This page was previously set for deletion as well and was rejected. Itsalldestiny (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsalldestiny, I would just say "no" to two of the sources provided their disclaimers. Animationxpress is not a reliable source and I don't think BWBusinessWorld is either. As I said, there is significant coverage which may help it pass WP:GNG but the nature of coverage is undue promotional and two sources suggest WP:UPE. What do you have to say on that? I'm myself confused on several resources and that's why we are here to receive comments from the community. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BW Business World was estbalished in 1981 and is a very reliable source. AnimationXpress has been around for quite a long time and is reliable as well. A few people commented here earlier saying that you helped them do this but comments were removed. Let's wait for the community's response on this. Itsalldestiny (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different people view sources differently so it is okay to have differences. I do not see "a few people" having commented here but there was a personal attack that has been removed. It is quite possible that OtakuKart has got some adversaries who come here randomly and speak nonsense but that has nothing to do with volunteer editors. I feel this AfD should be protected so that anons don't participate in this discussion. @MER-C, would you be doing this please? ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's only one IP. MER-C 19:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the AfC reviewer that accepted this, I thought I should weigh in, but I unfortunately I don't think my comment will provide much sway one way or another now. I accepted this as part of the AfC backlog drive last year per the WP:AFCPURPOSE of thinking it would probably survive an AfD. I guess this puts that to the test...
At the time, I think I saw the plethora of sources from what seemed to be respectable Indian newspaper and magazine outlets. AnimationXpress, I also gave the benefit of the doubt to since it lists a contact for an Editor-in-Chief taking that to give some reliability. I've since learned to be more skeptical of articles when they do not include a byline. Sometimes a website will WP:CHURN out a press-release and say it's from the staff instead of including an author's name that wrote a piece independently. I would probably be concerned about that Deccan Chronicle piece now. And the Deccan Herald piece says "This article is part of a featured content programme." I'm not quite sure what that means, and unfortunately, my unfamiliarity with Indian media practices makes me hesitant to judge this with much authority. The piece with only byline used doesn't really confer notability to OkatuKart itself. The Week piece seems decently written from an independent view,^[1] but I don't know what "The Week Focus" means. They seem to use it a lot on the Sci/Tech subjects, and at the same time, bylines are used more frequently on some other articles depending on the subject area. The India Today piece seems to cover the same news, but it reads more like it could be a copy/paste of a flowery press release than The Week, and I don't know what an "Impact Feature" is.
All that said, I know WP:NMEDIA is an essay vice a guideline, but there are some points worth considering that media rarely covers competition, but this site does seem to be considered a useful resource by others in the spirit of WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals criteria #s 3 and 4. When trying the AfD source-search links, the site is actually cited by a published book and some GScholar citations such as this. I'm very on the fence here... sorry for the long journey nowhere. - 2pou (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Otakukart Takes Over Sportaldente And Daxstreet". The Week (Indian magazine). Retrieved 2021-06-22.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The majority of the references are likely PRs; as they are without bylines, those articles read like PR. I don't believe most of the sources added there are reliable, except for some that are inefficient to prove their notability as per WP:GNG. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a proepr comment if they are PR or not. "Likely PRs" is not a proepr comment when a Wikipedia Page is at stake of getting deleted. As I said earlier, the sources are reliable and reputable. These sites are cited on countless Wikipedia articles. Itsalldestiny (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the references that I said were actually PRs include a Deccan Chronicle citation; upon visiting the news article, it says that "No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content." "The group also takes no responsibility for this content," as written at the end as a disclaimer. When we browse the 2nd news citation of Mid-day, it has the byline "BrandMedia," which is actually a PR company, and it also adds "partnered content" at the end, which means Mid-day has not written it, so it is also PR. The third news citation in Outlook is also similar to the above two, and it also doesn't have any journalist bylines. After observing the fourth citation of Animation Xpress, it is also written like a PR and not as news. It also doesn't have any journalistic bylines, which means this one also comes from a PR company. Now there is the Deccan Chronicle repeated citation, and after that there is the FPJ citation, which is a rewritten form of the above PR source. Now, if we observe the seventh citation of NewsX, it is deleted by NewsX on their website, but the archive machine url shows an article that again doesn't have a journalist byline and is also written like a press release. Now, the eighth citation of India Today is also a PR because it is written in as an "impact feature." The Impact Feature in the News is defined as "Impact is a weekly print magazine publishing information on advertising and advertising marketing news specifically targeted towards agency and business managers." Now, the ninth citation of The Week also doesn't have a byline, but it says the reporters and staff gave information in its first paragraph, so we'll leave The Week's citation for now. The tenth citation in Business World is not about the OtakuKart, as it discusses Shubham Sharma, not the OtakuKart. Similarly, the eleventh citation of Animation Xpress has not discussed the OtakuKart. And the last twelveth citation is a tweet link, which is not reliable.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deccan Chronicle article likely came from a syndicate feed. Animation Express, Outlook, India Today, The Week, and Business World, are all legit sources. Shubham Sharma is part of OtakuKart. Itsalldestiny (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply: News Articles that don't have bylines are fetched from syndicated feeds or press releases. A journalist's byline in the news means the subject is independently covered by a journalist for the particular news outlet. Most of these sources don't have any journalist byline.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Different news websites works differently. Itsalldestiny (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 03:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cardin Nguyen[edit]

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

Fails WP:SINGER and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Mountain, Arizona[edit]

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

Here we have another problem which comes up in these GNIS-based articles: I can tell you all about this place, but not using reliable™ sources. It's not a town; there was a trading post from sometime back, and this was eventually joined by several motels and a gas station in hopes of the tourist business. Everything is now closed and abandoned except the gas station. It has an assigned zip code, but the closest post office is in Cameron, over nine miles north. A little north of the businesses is an ADOT yard and the Gray Mountain Bible Church. From aerial photos I can roughly tell when most of these buildings were put up, and I can also see that there were and are no houses around as far back as the early 1950s. But none of this is from usable sources, or in the case of the post office, requires synthesis. I can't even source calling it a ghost town. Searching brings up the usual crap as well as various references to it as a locating point, and I even found a report of a stabbing there; but the latter gives no information about Gray Mountain itself. Presumably newspapers ought to have some references to some of the businesses, but unless one of them has an article about the place I don't see how name drops are going to help. I ust don't see keeping an article for which there aren't reliable sources. Mangoe (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They also have some magnetic rocks, which is kind of interesting but not really enough to base an article about the town on. At least this one exists. Retracted following recent improvements. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've done some digging and adding to this sparse article, this one has substantially more coverage than the average nominated Arizona place name article over recent months at AFD. The 2003 Rough Guide source claims it had a population of 68 at that time[28] but I don't know where they got that number, so I did not add that fact.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find some more sources to add to the ones Milowent found, and I think the subject passes GNG now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the improvements to the article since its nomination for deletion establish notability for the article's subject. It meets WP:GNG, which according to WP:GEOLAND would be the appropriate guideline for an unincorporated area such as this one. - Aoidh (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
per Keep Wikipedia:HEY. Djflem (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the argument for deletion was not strong here. There was a recent expansion of the article. WP:ATD Bruxton (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Associazione Studi e Ricerche per il Mezzogiorno[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. This article was recently tagged for A7 and G11. However, the original patrolling in 2018 didn't tag it for CSD, so that's probably controversial. Hence I'm coming here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a whopping three hits in Gnews and all sources in the article are from their own publications. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is full of primary sources. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[:0-1] Rosman, Katherine (22 August 2009). "Style -- In Fashion: They Know What She Wore Last Night --- WhoWhatWear's Hillary Kerr and Katherine Power turn celebrity sleuthing into a business". Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. pp. W.5.

[forbes2-2] O'Connor, Clare (2016-10-28). "Clique Media Group Adds CollegeFashionista To Portfolio Of Women-Focused Web Brands". forbes.com. Retrieved 2018-08-21.

[businessinsider1-3] Lansat, Myelle; Feloni, Richard (2018-07-06). "The CEO of a fashion business with $28 million and an audience of 25 million decided to skip college and go straight to work after 45 minutes driving around a parking lot". businessinsider.com. Retrieved 2018-08-21.

[4] "Otakukart Takes Over Sportaldente And Daxstreet". The Week (Indian magazine). Retrieved 2021-06-22.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]