Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 25 November 27 >

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. Consensus is to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Champ[edit]

Lily Champ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PRODded this because my WP:BEFORE search didn't find any independent RS coverage outside of this Laois Today article, which I think is too brief to constitute sigcov. ‎Guliolopez (courtesy ping) dePRODded and added citations to Irish Country Magazine and the Irish Farmers Journal, but Champ writes a column in both of those outlets, so I'm not convinced that they're independent of the subject. Happy to discuss. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ireland. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Irish Farmer's Journal calls her "well known" and I have no reason to believe she isn't. Another article says she's been gardening longer than most people have been alive, but I can't find anything written about her. The sources used in the article here are the only ones I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was featured on a television show on RTE (no link to the show, but it's discussed in this press pack [1]), down near the bottom. Oaktree b (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I feel like she's regionally known and perhaps also on a national level, but there are no sources. We're almost at GNG; one good source would change my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:BASIC and considerable expansion with additional sources added. Given that we need to discount the slightly longer articles from Irish Country Magazine and Irish Farmers Journal (since she writes for them), we still have the two summaries from RTÉ One (2010 episode of Ear to the Ground and 2021 episode of Nationwide) (which are the strongest of the lot); the lead-in to the Midlands 103 radio interview (which adds the National Ploughing Championships and a few other minor details); the brief intro to a Q&A interview in the book Trevor's Kitchen Garden (which calls her "well known to the readers of Irish Farmers Journal); and the above-mentioned article in Laois Today which we all wish was slightly longer. Do I wish there was more depth in the non-RTÉ sources to justify keeping this? Yes. But for what it is, it's arguably just enough: a kitchen garden expert who is well known locally, with national recognition on RTÉ One, the annual Bloom Festival, and the National Ploughing Championships, as well as the national columns in Irish Farmers Journal and Irish Country Magazine, and WP:BASIC allows us to stitch the pieces together. (Also added a few more passing mentions and details in addition to these.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Agree with the assessment above, weak but she's at GNG due to the television programs. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In all honesty, and with thanks to Extraordinary Writ for the "courtesy ping", I'm still on-the-fence on this one. Even with the well-sourced improvements and supported additions by Cielquiparle (thanks), I'm not sure it's clear-cut either way. While I can't outright justify or advocate that we "keep" a stand-alone BIO article, I also don't think that outright deletion is the correct course. The only WP:ATD I can consider is a merge (of the overlapping content) to Irish Farmers Journal. With a redirect left behind. Otherwise, in all honesty, I'm not sure what to suggest. While not a clear-cut candidate for PROD (and I still stand behind my dePROD), I don't have a firm AfD recommendation either way... Guliolopez (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after article changes since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She's not very notable. Important sources we rely on to establish notability are also places where she's been published, but I assume there are not that many Irish gardening publications and that anyone who's spent a long life in the industry might have the same issue. I think we have to assume they have sufficient editorial credibility. I've struggled with this one for same/similar reasons that people have stated above, but my main question to is therefore "is the encyclopedia better with her in it or not in it. so I vote keep. CT55555(talk) 15:54, 29 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winter-Telling Stories[edit]

Winter-Telling Stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. Also no results in google or news. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 23:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 22:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Mulvaney[edit]

Dylan Mulvaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not convinced that notability has been met here for a living persons page. Citations seem to all be news reports or blog type websites. I am unsure this represents a significant contribution in relation to the requirements for notability. TheMouseMen (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Through 2022 (especially after her meeting with Biden in October), Mulvaney has been the subject of media coverage for her social media presence, meeting with Biden, and advertising deal with Ulta Beauty and subsequent online criticism. This has included news coverage from The New York Observer ([2]), NBC News ([3][4]), The Times ([5]). Bridget (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The current sourcing in the article clearly establishes notability per WP:GNG by way of significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. The nom is flawed as it seems this new editor, while operating in good faith, does not seem to be familiar with or understand our guidelines for notability. Netherzone (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the guidance, I’m questioning notability being proved here. TheMouseMen (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheMouseMen Please explain why you feel the coverage in these sources currently supporting the article are dubious or doubtful: The Observer, PinkNews, NBC News, LA Magazine, San Diego Magazine, Elle, Good Morning America, The Daily Beast, The Times (of London), Rolling Stone and others. Your detailed analysis of these sources would be helpful here. Netherzone (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone, I’m not stating they are dubious or doubtful - I’m sure they’re legit articles, I was solely questioning the broader notability. It seems the subject has made some TikTok videos, I accept they seem popular, but does TikTok popularity equate to Wikipedia notability? Does her contribution to her field (is activist the main area of achievement?) meet notability guidance? Agree the sources are valid/legit. TheMouseMen (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheMouseMen, a person does not have to fit into a neat vocational box to be notable. She meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. It would be appreciated if you would kindly answer my question above why you don't think that the multiple, in-depth, independent reliable sources are enough. Since you continue to question notability being proven, which of course if your right, it would be really helpful to this discussion if you could please do a detailed source analysis of these references. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: news reports are acceptable sources, nominator should perhaps slow down and familiarise themself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. PamD 10:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What’s she Notable for in a sentence?

Then we can see if there’s evidence for that. Tannim101 (talk) 16:50, 27 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 22:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto Alemán[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fausto Alemán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about former footballer who now plays beach football. His football career involved a handful of appearances in the Mexican second level, and consistent with the initial AfD in 2017, there is no significant coverage available (newer coverage focuses entirely on his beach football career, but nothing is in-depth just match reports like this and a quick blurb like this. Article probably should have been deleted back in 2017, but it's crystal clear after WP:NSPORTS2022 that it fails our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 22:37, 26 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 1990 NSWRL season. Star Mississippi 22:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1990 Channel 10 Challenge Cup[edit]

1990 Channel 10 Challenge Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage and the article has only one reference. SL93 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • · Delete - Same. Only thing I could find was what was in the article. Does not meet GNG. HennSw123 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1990 NSWRL season as alternative to deletion - worth a mention there but agree it does not warrant its own article. Deus et lex (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested above. Not every sports competition requires an article, even though routine sporting news may often be found to support one. BusterD (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm not trying to shape policy, I found the arguments of those advocating Delete more persuasive than those arguing to Keep this article and I don't see that this list fulfills recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Charleston, South Carolina[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Charleston, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists, they must meet WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama which both closed as clear delete, with closure statements refuting the argument that any other criteria takes precedence over notability for these lists.

The topic of tall buildings in Charleston, South Carolina as a whole has no significant coverage that I found, so GNG/NLIST is not met. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and South Carolina. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikpedia consensus to keep lists of notable subjects for navigation and per Wikipedia:CSC, which does require all items to be blue-linked. Useful surevy with embedded with useful information about history, growth, development, urban planning, streetscape of Charleston. Djflem (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cited closures do not address WP:NLIST:There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. They are attempts by closers to write policy, which is NOT the role of closers and should be disregarded as such. Djflem (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are the result of closers assessing arguments and systematically rejecting yours. There may have been no clear consensus on how to handle such lists when that passage was written, but the across-the-board delete closures indicate that the community has indeed come to a consensus about these lists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The passage as written was the guideline in effect and is still in effect and will remain the guideline in effect until such time as it is re-written. Therefore any creative interpretation does not constitute a guideline approved by the community, but rather a position taken by the closer, who would have done better to join the discussion with their opinion, rather than use it in their closure, which go beyond reporting neutrally the outcome of discussion. Djflem (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The portion you cite isn't a black and white prescription for keeping these lists. Read the actual words, not what you want them to say. It says "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept". Let's break that down.
    First of all, that says "Often kept". Not "must be kept," not "always kept", but "often kept". It's not describing what must be done, but simply reporting that this is often done. Second of all, the consensus was extremely clear at the above-cited closes (especially Montgomery, Alabama) that "tallest buildings" lists do not necessarily "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes," so even if that passage was prescriptive (again - it's not), it wouldn't apply to these lists. Considering how clear the consensus has been, it would have been a supervote for the closers to close them any other way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As written in above mentioned: "While this seems natural for cities known for the height of their buildings like Chicago, and New York, at some point, there must be a cutoff. The consensus here represents a definition that the city for this list is below that cutoff" is writing a guideline. It is specific in stating "this" city (Montgomery), but that has been construed to mean other cities, while the newly created "cutoff" was never actually was defined. Nowhere does it specify type of city or height of buildings, though there have been numerous claims that it has. Djflem (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The cutoff is that such lists, by clear consensus, must meet notability guidelines. Sources must exist showing that the topic is discussed as a whole. Closers of such lengthy AfDs often sum up the consensus as a courtesy explaining their thinking; this is not "writing a guideline" by any means. For the closers to specify type of city or height of buildings would of course be overstepping into creating policy by fiat - which of course is why none of them have done so on any of these AfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, their explanation is very specific in its supposed "cutoff" about types of cities and heights of buildings, an attempt write guideline, and goes onto say The consensus here represents a definition that the city for this list is below that cutoff. It's not a courtesy, it's overreach and in conflict with the role of a closer. Djflem (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had that much of a problem with the close, you should have DRV'd it two years ago. Complaining that it's illegitimate now after these articles have continued to be deleted by clear consensus is obviously just a case of sour grapes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's just acknowledge that any AfD nomination citing the faulty close, as you have, are faulty themselves. Djflem (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NLIST, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. In this case, many of the list entries are on notable subjects and so I feel this article meets the criteria. Nomination appears to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF and neither appear to be comparable anyway as the majority of entries in those cases did not have articles. Garuda3 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the above discussion; this argument clearly does not apply to these lists in the absence of any sources about the topic as a whole. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow your reasoning. The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama that you linked above is pretty clear that whether to keep or delete should be decided on a case-by-case basis and not by blindly following any particular guideline. Garuda3 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you agree that we should have to make a case for notability for each of these articles individually. Great! In which case, please make the case for notability in a policy-based manner depending on sources, not by "blindly following" NLIST's note that such articles are often (not always, not must) kept. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of these "List of tallest buildings in X" article AFD discussions have closed as "Delete" but there are objections to the nomination here so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems rather useless, most of the "building" are under two hundred feet, most are church steeples and most if not all don't even seem to be on the NRHP or heritage buildings. A list just for the sake of having a list isn't needed, show me why these deserve to be tabulated. There is no discussion before the chart showing why they don't have very tall buildings, or why most are churches for example. I'd be inclined to !keep if we had some explanation, rather than just a list. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the list for Los Angeles for example, that's a proper article on wiki. Some discussion about the buildings, then the list. I can't find anything discussing the history of tall buildings in Charleston either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete When five of the first six entries are church steeples, we're talking a place where the height of buildings is hardly noted. We have mostly deleted these lists because of the lack of evidence that people really care; they were largely copied from Emporis without regard to whether anyone cared what the twenty-fifth tallest building in 'Random City" was. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unambiguous NLIST failure. There is no demonstration that there is any real discussion in secondary sources about this subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we can say something substantive about the tallest buildings in the articles on the city of Charleston, South Carolina it can be done there. There is no justification for this list article. The list also fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST, which is a mess of WP:LISTCRUFT. CPORfan (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Campbell (artist)[edit]

Marcus Campbell (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails, WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG, possible hoax? Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on this book and write-up, he may meet the first criteria of WP:ARTIST. It's the only one I can find though. If more similar commentary on his work by peers cannot be found, deletion is likely most appropriate. The fact he is recognized by known artists who published books about his work combined with his earlier literary career might combine to approach notability. As for the award he supposedly won, I can't independently verify that he won it, but it does appear to be a fairly significant award in New Zealand. Still, I doubt this would be enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Chagropango (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sargeson prize which Mr Campbell says he won in 1981 did not exist then. Frank Sargeson only died in 1982 and a fellowship in his name was set up in 1987 which included a literature prize. From the Frank Sargeson Wikipedia entry: In 1987, the Trust established the Sargeson Fellowship, a New Zealand literary award, to provide assistance to New Zealand writers. Some writers who have received the award include Janet Frame (who was, appropriately, the first writer to receive the award in 1987),[5] Alan Duff and Michael King. From 1987 to 1996 the award was paid for by the Trust, but after funding ran out, law firm Buddle Findlay took over sponsorship from 1997 to 2013 and the fellowship was renamed the Buddle Findlay Sargeson Fellowship.[29][30] Since 2013, the fellowship has been sponsored by law firm Grimshaw & Co and it is now known as the Grimshaw Sargeson Fellowship.[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthtalker13 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Amazon biography also quotes the Sargeson Prize this time 1983 and for a book of short stories Mr Campbell only published on Amazon in 2017. Please note also that all 3 reviews are by the same person. Mention of Fulbright award and Katherine Mansfield awards cannot be verified and are likely to be a hoax. https://www.amazon.com/Marcus-Campbell/e/B07ZC9D18Q/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1 Truthtalker13 — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 20 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! 20:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on above, it almost sounds like HOAX. I don't see anything for this person, one with the same name organizes book fairs in the UK, that's all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as non-notable as per this resume. MurrayGreshler (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MurrayGreshler: The Find NZ Artists pages aren't resumes, they're just a record of where artist's files can be found. The fact that his artist's files are held at New Zealand's national museum is probably a point towards notability rather than away from it (although isn't enough on its own, per my below comment). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chocmilk03: -- Thanks. I knew the word "resume" was not correct but I couldn't think of the right term and had to choose the closest thing I could think of. However, I did check the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa link earlier as well ([https://findnzartists.org.nz/artist/2492/marcus-campbell) for Campbell info, and -- unlike other artists whom I sampled -- the file has no information for Campbell, not even the most basic. MurrayGreshler (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria, nor WP:AUTHOR nor WP:ARTIST. I don't think the article is a hoax. I have found a 1978 reference to an award called the Sargeson Prize for prose fiction but I can't find any records of other winners nor does this appear to be a significant award (the article describes it as being accompanied by a "small cash prize" and the right to be published in a literary magazine). It appears that one of his short stories was anthologised in the fourth edition of New Zealand Short Stories (1984). But at the end of the day I can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources, which seems to me to be the clincher. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, not that it's definitive, but his books as linked on Amazon appear to be self-published. Have found this review of A Blue Forest on Kirkus Reviews which again isn't enough to demonstrate his own notability. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:08, 28 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! 05:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ezaz Yusufi[edit]

Ezaz Yusufi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. No significant coverage in reliable media which shows the subject passes notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:50, 19 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! 19:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 17:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tharik Hussain[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tharik Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in independent sources which has not changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tharik Hussain. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:47, 19 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! 19:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The nominator has reviewing rights and I trust their statement that the independent sources haven't improved since it was last deleted. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jashim Salam[edit]

Jashim Salam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to the absence of any significant coverage or contribution. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. I googled a bit and found something. The Guardian mentioned him: [[6]]. The Washington Post: [[7]]. There are mentions in Spanish [[8]] and Portuguese [[9]], too. There is an interview with him as an award winner [[10]]. --Suitskvarts (talk) 09:56, 23 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! 19:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looked into articles mentioned by @Suitskvarts... I think there is enough coverage and given where the sources are coming from also supports the case. HennSw123 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources analyzed by suitskvarts seem to show GNG, I can't find anything extra. Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 26 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toufique Imrose Khalidi[edit]

Toufique Imrose Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Much of the sources are single mentions or are from Bdnews24.com (an online news site), of which he is the editor. Sources one and two are quotations from him in news articles. Source three is an article written by him. Source four notes he was a panellist at an event. Source five says he was a panellist at an event. Source Six is a quotation. Source seven is his profile on his news site. Source eight is significant coverage in an independent source. Source nine is an article written by him on his news site. Source ten is 404. Source 11 is his site. Source 12 is his site. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:36, 19 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! 19:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Much coverage of the scandal such as [11], perhaps not meeting JOURNALIST but is at GNG with the media coverage about his financial doings, talk of corruption and such. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom and did some cleanup to remove what was only sourced to Bdnews24.com. Searching for sources, outside of the case against him, sources are from his news site, brief mentions or his statements. However, I don't think the coverage about his legal issues meets GNG as the sources do not state much about him. Happy to reconsider, though. S0091 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merican Sutan[edit]

Merican Sutan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another public servant who, while accomplished, does not have enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is tiring sometimes, but we need to review all article for notability guidelines to ensure wikipedia is kept reliable. There is nothing personal about the nomination, we have to treat every review the same, to keep it fair for everyone. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Merican Sutan important or why is Merican Sutan famous? If there is an answer to this question then there is no reason to delete. Gazozlu (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources found for the police officer. Famous doesn't mean notable unfortunately. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A sources about his death, you go see it and old news about him. Normal rookie (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage would appear to satisfy WP:GNG and his honours satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 24 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! 19:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Coverage and honors are routine. -Apocheir (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat hesitant keep, against the grain. We're talking about a pre-internet figure outside the anglosphere; coverage is going to be hard to come by, and yet we have a brief obituary in a sizeable newspaper, evidence he was the founder of an important police unit, and the head of the police academy in the country's capital. We're never going to have a lengthy bio here, but a permastub is reasonable, I believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex PF-X[edit]

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex PF-X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Article strictly relies on a primary and another unreliable third party source, mostly WP:OR. The stub is too short due to lack of coverage and details among reliable sources to even have a section in PAC, leave alone having a standalone article. Swift deletion requested. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:01, 19 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! 19:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete It's hard to get a good grip on this article, if for no other reason that the mention of Project Azm leads to a sentence stating that the project was cancelled. This is the sort of thing that led to WP:CRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 21:18, 26 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 Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Research Group[edit]

Comet Research Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There has been a lot of buzz around certain pseudoarchaeology claims associated with this group. However, the group itself as a group does not seem to be notable in the sense that there are almost no independent, reliable sources written about the group. For whatever reason, there just has not yet been the notice we would require to write a neutral summary of this group's work because, well, the group is fringe. WP:NFRINGE asks us to look for sincere and significant sources upon which to base our content. As it is, we have puff pieces, press releases, the group's own say-so, and brief mentions in articles that are talking about certain claims the group has made. Unless and until serious sources about the group are created, I just do not think Wikipedia can host an article that will be up to our standards. jps (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur. If there is a choice between allowing unsourced claims and deleting the article, then it should be deleted.
The only reason it exists is because certain users wanted to use wikipedia as a platform to discredit the CRG. A collaboration between Doug Wells and Hoopes to push unsupportable claims. Once those unsupportable claims are challenged, and found to not stand up to scrutiny, there isn't much left to justify an article. Incendiex90 (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note this must leave a redirect and retain most of the content. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Younger Dryas article as suggested. Sources here include an article about a theory being on Jeopardy and small tidbits, nothing substantive. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. jps, deletion seems to be a cheap way to avoid documenting the pseudo-scientific nature of CRG. No wonder Incendiex90 supports deletion. This move smells because we should document the group's nature. Parity of sources covers this subject, so the existence of a few scientific sources does the job. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent a few hours combing through the sources. Most of the sources don't come right out and say what CRG actually is including the primary sources that identify associated ideas as pseudoscientific or pseudoarchaeology (these sources typically sidestep the question CRG entirely and I can't find any article, paper, or even threadroll that goes into an explanation of how this group actually was set up and when). I sympathize with the hope that Wikipedia can be used to document this group, but I don't think we're the right venue for that given the dearth of serious in-depth sources. Try RationalWiki instead, I would say. jps (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several recommendations for merging this article into Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Which part(s) do you think should be moved over? Joyous! | Talk 04:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The CRG is the primary advocate of the YDIH, and advocating the YDIH is the primary reason the CRG exists. I think pretty much the whole article could be slotted into the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#History. – Joe (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. I think this article was created in good faith, but the lengthy discussions of WP:NPOV on the talk page have revealed that there really isn't enough substantial coverage to go on. – Joe (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem with merging with the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis page is that the scope of the CRG is larger than the YDIH. The CRG's Tall el-Hammam airburst paper is the most widely read paper of 2021 according to Altmetric, and it is the first paper that is completely attributable to the CRG, including the funding source. If CRG was merged with YDIH, how would discussion of the Tall el-Hammam airburst be justified in its new home? Proxy data (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly a drawback, but I think you can still retain it introduced with e.g. "in a related paper by CRG members...". The two are drawn from the same wider theory of coherent catastrophism, even if it's a different impact. It's also covered on Tell el-Hammam, of course. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is a drawback, but I think that the appropriate way to discuss the funding is through Tell el-Hammam's section and then link to the relevant subsection in YDIH. jps (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be merged into the article on the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comment that the Comet Research Group only present "puff pieces, press releases, the group's own say-so, and brief mentions in articles that are talking about certain claims the group has made" is not realistic. They have many publications in major peer-reviewed journals such as PNAS - who Wikipedia list as "PNAS is the second most cited scientific journal, with more than 1.9 million cumulative citations from 2008 to 2018." So the grumble that their work is only pseudo science is not true unless the majority of peer reviewed articles in PNAS is also pseudo science. Wikipedia's deletion criteria only lists one of 14 that might apply: # 14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. I would hope that serious scientific discussions would be worthy of listing in an encyclopedia. Science is not meant to be consensus driven nor a popularity poll. Science is about proposing theories that better explain the observations. The CRG does that very well, even if you do not like their theories. BurgRes (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not understand the argument? It's that the sources about the group are scarce. I make not judgement as to how many sources about other things the group itself has created. jps (talk) 03:45, 24 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! 19:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 17:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Private school that doesn't seem to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can see the discussions via the links above. Coverage of this incident seems to have played a major role, but the standard for school articles has risen since the last AfD and I'm not convinced this is enough coverage to meet the GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 16:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tumayo Ka't... Lumaban[edit]

Tumayo Ka't... Lumaban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Only 1 review found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability.

PROD removed with no improvements or comments DonaldD23 talk to me 16:49, 26 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! 16:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don George (boxer)[edit]

Don George (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:19, 26 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Lothamer[edit]

Elijah Lothamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was sent to draft for improvement, then moved back without any improvement. Not a single in-depth reference from a reliable, independent, secondary source. Searches did not turn up any either. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Indiana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the sources currently in the article (passing mentions, podcast interviews, etc.) clearly aren't enough to show notability, and my search didn't find any in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Too soon, perhaps. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article. Normally, draftifying could be an WP:ATD in situations like this, but the author has already rejected that approach. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Białołęka[edit]

Flag of Białołęka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A redirect to the city was reverted without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:26, 26 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 delete. Already deleted CSD G5 so I'm closing this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Chaudhry[edit]

Nasir Chaudhry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cross-wiki spam that is a classic case of WP:REFBOMB of 'references' that don't even mention the subject. Those that do mention him are completely unreliable and are actually written by Nasir Chaudhry or a close relative. Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://nasirsinger.skyrock.com/3352015220-Interview-Nasir-Chaudhry.html No The blog is authored by 'Nasirsinger' so this is likely the subject interviewing himself No Blog No Basic Q&A ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/on-nasir-chaudhrys-22th-birthday-her-birthday-cake-with-her-family/ No Written by 'nasirmusic012' No No The English is very poor (e.g. inconsistent gender pronouns, probably machine translated) ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/meet-nasir-chaudhry-a-successful-musician-and-songwriter-on-punjabi-music-industry/ No Author is 'infonasirmusic' No No ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1656372 Yes Yes No Doesn't mention the subject ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110130070949/http://www.radiomirchi.com/mma2010/hindi/nominees.php Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1451743 Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/new-song-2021-popular-punjabi-song-music-video-makeup-sung-by-nasir-chaudhry/ No Author is 'infonasirmusic' No No Routine song announcement ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykU5TVxgvxY&ab_channel=Lahoriye No No No YouTube video ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-59374890 Yes Yes No Article is instead about Malik Al Nasir ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/the-self-made-success-story-of-nasir-chaudhry/ No Written by 'nasirmusic012' No No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200613171619/https://www.desimoviesreviews.com/index.php/2017/11/24/pakistans-oscars-nigar-awards/ Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/most-popular-songs-of-album-makeup-by-nasir-chaudhry/ No No Anyone can create an account and post here No ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/483444/celebrations-kiran-chaudhry-ties-the-knot Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/biography-nasir-chaudhry/ No Extremely promotional No Anyone can create an account and post here No ✘ No
https://dailytimes.com.pk/439311/full-music-album-of-heer-maan-ja-released/ Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/nasir-chaudhry-became-one-of-the-most-talented-singer/ No Author is 'nasirjaanofficial20' No No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110130070949/http://www.radiomirchi.com/mma2010/hindi/nominees.php Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.nation.com.pk/14-Aug-2022/president-arif-alvi-confers-civil-awards-on-253-personalities Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.thetoptens.com/music/best-pakistani-singers/ No No No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://dailytimes.com.pk/271025/dear-jibran-nasir-please-abort-before-its-too-late/ Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/asian-music-chart/20220415/asian/ Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/nasir-chaudhry-the-multi-talented-artist-ready-to-take-over-the-music-industry/ No No Anyone can create an account and post here No ✘ No
https://www.billboard.com/charts/canadian-hot-100/ Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/BHmrZF1Z7JDckzFSZ9cl7l/changes-to-the-bbc-music-website Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/nasir-chaudhry-sings-songs-for-many-bollywood-and-pollywood-films-like-recently-he-gave-her-voice-for-songs/ No No Anyone can create an account and post here No ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/20th-lux-style-awards-best-model-and-singer-male-of-the-year-won/ No No Anyone can create an account and post here No ✘ No
https://stagedramas7.blogspot.com/2016/03/nida-chaudhry-nasir-chanoti-new-comedy.html No No Blogspot unacceptable No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://arynews.tv/drones-will-tear-us-apart-pakistani-pops-war-fixation/ Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.raprnb.com/tv/nasir-chaudhry-became-one-of-the-most-talented-singer/ No Author is 'nasirjaanofficial20' No No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and WP:SALT as a continual recreation of a non-notable singer. I was actually prepping an AfD myself in order to try and conclude this continual recreation with a community consensus but was beaten to it! The nom is absolutely correct in that this is a case of significant WP:REFBOMB and from checking, a considerable amount of the citations are not even about the subject (for example, #5, #6, #9, #13, #23.. and many others). I also concur that those which mention him cannot be relied upon or being independent WP:SECONDARY sources. As a side-note, the most recent article creator is probably also the subject themselves, based on their username and that pretty much their entire wikipedia contribution is this article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with salting here Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:31, 26 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Adrien Frigola[edit]

Draft:Adrien Frigola (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Adrien Frigola|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced BLP Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 07:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard deletion request, I did not notice it was a draft Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 08:00, 26 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. Overwhelming consensus to Keep this article. But it would really benefit the article if the many, many sources that Keep voters say exist were added to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PyCharm[edit]

PyCharm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and poorly sourced. Was redirected earlier in the year but this was reverted recently. This should either be deleted or redirected back. Anarchyte (talk) 05:43, 26 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! 05:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent comparison[edit]

Inconsistent comparison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any source for this use of the term except what's already in the article, which is a WordPress blog. I found some logical fallacy listing sites containing different meanings of the term than what the article contains; I don't think they're RS either, though.

Seems like it might be WP:MADEUP. CharredShorthand (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 10:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also couldn't find any independent sources that relate to the concept, although I will note its a bit hard to look, these two words are used together in many places in ways not related to the topic, so if someone DOES find something feel free to ping me to re-evaluate. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems like a concept that should be covered in reliable sources (reminds me a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retroactive nomenclature in that respect), but without such sources we can't have an article on it. It might be the case that the concept is covered by sources that use a different term for it, so ping me if something is found. TompaDompa (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of hidden races in DC Comics[edit]

List of hidden races in DC Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing this one because of scope issues. What is a "hidden race"? The article provides an ORish definition. It also partially overlaps with List of alien races in DC Comics, and we could consider a merge of these two into a List of fictional species in DC Comics or such (name suggested based on category:DC Comics species), although for both topics, WP:LISTN is an issue. The odds are that one list of DC species might pass LISTN, but we don't need two, particularly when one is using this weird concept of "hidden races". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed by Piotrus into a single List of fictional species in DC Comics, unless List of alien races in DC Comics is deleted at AfD as well. The difference is clearly arbitrary, as the article does not clearly define the scope of the list other than being located on Earth, and some of the species listed here are of alien origin. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The entire actual concept of this list, as well as the selection of items that makes up the grouping, appears to be WP:OR. I was considering the nom's suggestion of a merge, but actually looking through the items, I don't think there's really much here that would actually be appropriate for merging. The majority of the entries here are utterly non-notable, often only appearing in a single story. And many more are not even actual "races" (i.e. dinosaurs, vampires, etc.). There are only a very small handful of entries here that would actually be valid to be included in a general "List of fictional species" list, and the sourcing is so poor in general that I would not even recommending merging those entries anywhere. I have no problem with the creation of a general "Fictional DC species list" for notable entries as suggested, but I don't think this list would need to be kept for that, considering its poor state. Rorshacma (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what the heck IS a “hidden race”? Who came up with the nonsense definition provided? What’s wrong with “species”? Dronebogus (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma as WP:OR. There isn't coverage that established this as a topic. I might possibly support a merged list if someone can find a scope that is verified in third-party sources and is also reasonably focused. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:21, 30 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! 05:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of objects in the DC Universe[edit]

List of objects in the DC Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A totally unreferenced, indiscriminate list with too big of a scope. Everything is an "object", including sentient beings, locations, etc. (and we have dedicated lists for these). Article fails WP:V, WP:NLIST, and WP:IPC, to start with. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ridiculously broad concept. Unviable. Dronebogus (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all above points. Lllogan (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wholly unsourced and no clear WP:LISTCRITERIA. The scope issues brought up above likely make this fundamentally untenable. It might be possible to create lists with narrower scopes that are subsets of this, but that would have to be done from scratch to do it properly, so there's no point in retaining this version. TompaDompa (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is high time Wikipedia did something to be rid of this listcruft. It is getting absurd. User:CPORfan (talk), 14:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Academy (Connecticut)[edit]

Franklin Academy (Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Possibly) a lack of significant coverage in RS, not sure if it's enough to meet WP:NSCHOOL. A few news outlet sources - I only found [31] and [32] and the article currently cites two Hartford Courant articles from before, and the first year of, the school's lifetime. ~Bluecrystal004 (talk · contribs) 04:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - serious WP:UNDUE issues. Pretty much the entirety of reliably sourced information is about the unrelated institutions that used the real estate this institution currently occupies. It doesn't belong in this article. A possible ATD might be to redirect it to the education section of the appropriate settlement article where telling the story of multiple educational institutions using the same property might be more appropriate. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC) (I'm trying to strike this vote, but it isn't rendering correctly. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep. I removed all but passing mentions of previous institutions, deleted swaths of text supported only by primary sources, and replaced text with information from reliable, independent, secondary sources. It now meets WP:GNG, having multiple sources providing significant coverage of this subject, without the distraction of copious descriptions of previous schools at that location. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's more than enough information and sourcing here. The school has been around for about 20 years. Valadius (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing available satisifies WP:GNG, as it does for pretty much any secondary school in the English-speaking western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-established boarding school yet without a controversy, refreshing. -- Saintstephen000 (talk)
    • Saintstephen000, an argument that actually applies at AFD would be nice. Neither age or reputation are factors in deletion. Off point !votes are routinely discounted when closing an AFD, so effectively, you've done nothing here but waste both your, and everyone else's time. It pays to read the instructions. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for taking the time to read and kindly respond with a gentle correction. we will certainly take your well-intentioned suggestions under advisement. Saintstephen000 (talk)

  • Keep - good job. Change my vote per HEYMAN. There's some content issues to work out, but it's notable now. Thanks. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any interested editors are invited to contribute to a text dispute discussion on this article's talk page. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:18, 30 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn, no support for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minskiy Kurier[edit]

Minskiy Kurier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NME. You really cant find anything about this newspaper company besides some newspaper listing companies but that doesn't make it notable. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. It would be better to WP:PROD this instead, I don't believe that a discussion about it is necessary.
Hello, HelpingWorld, you can't PROD an article that has been nominated for an AFD deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, thats why i said I want to withdraw the nomination and then after prod it since I think a discussion is not needed about this subject.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 22:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I disagree with your assessment. Can't we avoid the unnecessary time needed for me to object to the PROD and instead discuss it here? JMWt (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that this one is hard to assess unless one reads Russian. Минский курьер appears to me to be quite an extensive news operation but I can't read the sources to tell if there are RS to the required level because I'm not a Russian speaker. I suspect that they probably do exist. JMWt (talk) 09:28, 26 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 Ig Nobel Prize. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul DeFanti[edit]

Paul DeFanti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fictional figure as part of a joke in the Ig Noble Prize. While there's a few passing mentions related to this fellow in the context of "jokes within a joke award", I'm not seeing anything that would suggest this in-joke warrants a dedicated article. Hog Farm Talk 04:39, 26 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! 00:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Quirk[edit]

Daniel J. Quirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insignificant coverage for WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Of the sources in the article, one is mostly a primary source interview, the BBB page has no useful information, and the last focuses primarily on Fore River Shipyard with only a trivial mention of Quirk. All other sources focus primarily on Quirk's businesses (rather than himself) and provide little biographical information or indication of significance beyond owning a few small car dealerships and part of a shipyard (also largely used for his businesses). PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 03:35, 26 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 delete. CSD A7. Liz Read! Talk! 08:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrin Templo Basister[edit]

Aldrin Templo Basister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obviously non-notable and bordering on WP:A7. Sources are unreliable, single role in non-notable play is insufficient for WP:NACTOR, WP:BEFORE found no more sources, hence WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are also failed. Previous PROD removed by article creator, this is bordering on WP:A7, the minor, completely unsourced award is likely not a credible claim of significance, so I am supporting speedy deletion as well but am AfDing this just to be safe. VickKiang (talk) 02:32, 26 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! 00:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Sport sponsorships[edit]

List of Grand Sport sponsorships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, non-notable list, with content copied from the article Grand Sport Group JJLiu112 (talk) 01:59, 26 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 00:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey G. Andrews[edit]

Geoffrey G. Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. Sources are either primary sources or a magazine about international schools. There is coverage of the subject in an article about an incident here, but it isn't enough to establish notability Tristario (talk) 00:49, 26 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 00:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tinhorn[edit]

Tinhorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NBAND and havent released anything ---FMSky (talk) 00:37, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_November_26&oldid=1125454624"