Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 04	November 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

CSX Northern Region[edit]

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

This is an internal region used administratively by CSX Transportation to organize its lines. There is a 0% chance this is a notable subject worthy of an encyclopedia article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing general notability and having no sources סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Devoke water 21:40, 10 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 List of CSX Transportation lines. There is weak consensus that many similar articles should be treated the same way, but lacking a formal bundled nomination I cannot redirect those at the moment: I suggest creating a new, single nomination for all the regions and subregions thought to be worthy of redirecting. A BOLD redirection may not be the worst idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSX Southern Region[edit]

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

This is an internal region used administratively by CSX Transportation to organize its lines. There is a 0% chance this is a notable subject worthy of an encyclopedia article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Holy crap and then there's junk like Nashville Division and Henderson Subdivision. These need to go or perhaps redirected to List of CSX Transportation lines. Reywas92^Talk 00:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd bundle all the division articles and nominate those as well but I'm too dumb to learn how to bundle nominations without it taking ages. I'm of the opinion that like 90% of the subdivision articles merit deletion, honestly. This might call for an entire RfC. Ideally most of them would end up like Fitzgerald Subdivision. I felt so strongly that wasn't notable I rewrote the entire article about the original railroad that built the line and redirected Fitzgerald Subdivision there, then brought it to GA. Anyways, all the division articles need to be deleted too, they're just administrative groupings. At least the subdivision articles are something theoretically encyclopedic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: "subdivision" in CSX lingo means a particular line. Dispatching divisions may or may not be notable, but almost everyone will agree individual lines are, just as they are for any railroad. oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to List of CSX Transportation lines for the time being until we can reorganize these pages. These entire CSX regions absolutely are in no need for their own microstubs each, at the very least. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Devoke water 21:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Due to WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:47, 13 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!} 22:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Charles English Medium High School[edit]

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

Same as my previous school nomination. Can't find any reliable sources to prove its notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No redeeming qualities. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of a WP:GNG or a subjective pass. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:00, 12 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!} 22:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Hotel Convention Center (Shreveport)[edit]

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

PROD'd in 2006 so can't be PROD'd. No indication of notability. No significant coverage located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Louisiana. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic convention center hotel (also I think we have a record for a generic architectural render being a part of the article rather than an image of the actual building...almost 16 years!). Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic convention center hotel lacking any historic or architectural notability Paul H. (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generic convention center hotel, plus no sources סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 21:42, 10 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 Shooting at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 metre rapid fire pistol. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Scarella[edit]

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

Placed 51 at an Olympics doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS and a WP:Before has not produced any other info on a Giovanni Scarella. I have also noticed that the Olympedia usually has quite some info on participants, but in the case of Scarella there isn't Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Italy. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear, based on search, to meet WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT or any other relevant notability guideline. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 metre rapid fire pistol, where he is referenced. Cbl62 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 metre rapid fire pistol, as above - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 13:47, 9 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. The lone "delete" !vote claims that the Fire is small-scale and does not have enduring coverage, but that opinion has been drowned out by both with the much more widely held (but subjective) opinion that the Fire is significant, as well as the (objective) existence of news coverage (The Guardian and BBC). This closure should not be construed as my opinion towards the subject matter. If you have any concerns, please feel free to reverse this disclosure while pinging me. Thank you. (non-admin closure) NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kostroma café fire[edit]

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

A fire in which people died, as sadly happens regularly. Fails WP:NOTNEWS; this is the sort of content one expects to find in r/ANormalDayInRussia, not in an encyclopedia. Nothing about this routine event suggests that it will have any long-term impact. Sandstein 21:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 21:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is not an ordinary or typical fire. The circumstances of its cause are unusual, it has a double-digit death toll and police have arrested a suspect. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small-scale domestic fire/crime that shows no clear aspects of having enduring coverage as required by WP:N. --Masem (t) 23:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It shows aspects of having coverage that exceeds WP:NOT News. First, there are still reports today [1]. Second, cafe belongs to Member of Kostroma Parliament. Coverage is guranteered, even apart of the circumstances of the incident. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This has high news coverage and is not the usual everyday fire. As for the "no long term impact," a lot of events are like this but are still on Wikipedia. Quantum XYZ (chat) 04:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes the notability guidelines, more than just news coverage. Unspectrogram (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is literally a Category:Nightclub fires started by pyrotechnics whose member articles utterly negate the nominator's claim, and a glance at List of nightclub fires shows quite a few articles on fires that resulted in fewer deaths. The nominator should withdraw this nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 09:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest closure per WP:SNOW. This was reported by virtually all reputable news outlets around the world, including the BBC (first article), BBC (second article), Reuters, CNN, France24 and DW, so this doesn’t seem to fail WP:NOTNEWS.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOT:NEWS is exactly why this should be deleted. A burst of coverage is not sufficient for notability or inclusion, we are looking for enduring coverage, and that's why most everyday news events are not covered by WP. Masem (t) 13:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Similar incidents with a double-digit death toll heeded by the media globally are almost always included on Wikipedia. You surely know this given how long you've been around and what you've been engaged with. The BBC published two news articles with a gap of almost one day, something they usually don't do for most stories that we have articles about. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is not a strict rule with a clearly defined numerical cut-off, so it virtually boils down to community consensus whether something should have an article or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this going to have any long term coverage a week from now? a month from now? a year from now? Pretty much no. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, where this type of article should start when the notability threshold is clearly not met. We specifically state that a burst of coverage is not equivalent to notability, and that's what is not being considered here. Masem (t) 04:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The answers to your questions lie on a crystal-ball territory. Overall, what you say makes a highly eliminatory criterion that is inapplicable in practice (How many news events with articles have that long-term coverage? Certainly very few.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From week - definitely, there is an ongoing coverage now, news from today [2] [3] [4]. A month from now - very likely yes. A year - I don't know, but it is not needed to have coverage a year from now for the article to exist. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is far from being an everyday news event. There will be a lot of further media coverage in regard to the suspect, and the investigation into what happened. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also sources [5] [6] [7] Kirill C1 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worldwide coverage, definitely not Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. There continues to be coverage [8]. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Extensive coverage. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - double-digit death toll, much more than an everyday event. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes WP:GNG. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage, a not common death toll, and an ongoing investigation which could give us more about this incident (talk--Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing GNG as mentioned above. I think consensus is clear now. Mellk (talk) 22:10, 10 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 to Draft:Team Fukushima. There's a consensus to send the article back to draft and I'm applying snowball clause and closing it. There's no need to keep this open any further in my opinion. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Team Fukushima[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This is likely to be an excellent organisation, but I am not persuaded that it passes, nor has been shown to pass, our notability and verification criteria. Almost entirely sourced to its own web site. Courtesy ping to @EchidnaLives: the accepting reviewer. I view this as a borderline acceptance, but just on the wrong side of the border. WIth that in mind I believe Draftify would be an acceptable outcome, or ideally WP:HEY - 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as AfC reviewer however I would like to link this discussion on the talk page. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would also like to add that the creator stated they would attempt to clean it up and add sources on the talk page, so we might see improvement over the coming days. echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Weak Delete per nom. Courtesty ping previous reviewers, Onel5969 and EchidnaLives, with whom I had a discussion at Talk:Team Fukushima. I'll raise points similarly to the ones I contended there. Overall, IMO WP:NCORP is failed. The majority of the refs seems to be from this project which states NPO Team Fukushima, so it's associated with the non-profit organisation the article is about and hence non-independent. More refs are from here, also a (questionable) organisation associated with Team Fukushima, indicated by ©︎NPO Team Fukushima at the bottom of the page. Its home page links to here, which shows it self-promoting on the Japanese Wikipedia (the article is incidentally tagged for deletion). Therefore, these refs are non-independent and non-RS. The rest seem to be reports that trivially mention this or minor awards, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. My WP:BEFORE failed to find much, unfortunately, the Japanese version of the page is no better, also relying on trivial mentions, more minor awards from the city (those awards are non-significant, not reported in the wider press, and lack corresponding articles on Wikipedia as well) that WP:CORPDEPTH also regards to as trivial, and non-independent sources as mentioned above. However, given the language barrier I am hesitant towards outright deletion, so draftification might be a good compromise.

Still, if drafted IMHO the article creator should not attempt to directly move this back without improvements, instead, notability concerns must be addressed. Further, the promotional format, including external links, puffery, and questionable dot pointed format, along with another organisation related to this company self-promoting on the Japanese Wikipedia, are also problematic and fails WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY. Even if additional sources demonstrating WP:NORG are found, IMO these promotional concerns must also be addressed prior to a move back to mainspace. If draftification, a WP:ATD, does not achieve sufficient consensus, then I'm at weak delete as the current version should not be kept. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - article creator says they are willing to work on it. And I agree it is not suitable as is for mainspace, neither did a before show enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. So drafting is a good AtD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At present the creating editor is making the case for Draftification by the way they are throwing (very hard to check) references at the article, creating a WP:CITEKILL/WP:BOMBARD effect. In the Draft: namespace they will have time to relax about seeking to prove notability. As nominator I might have draftified it instead, but the fact that it's an AFC acceptance militated against that. This is why we are at AfD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I deleted promotional parts and added many citation.

These articles doesn't have digital version, so it makes checking more difficult.

However, I used official databases of each newspaper and added enough information needed for verification.

And, this organization has been featured many times in mainstream newspaper in Japan. I think this is the point.

If it were an unknown organization, it would not be featured many times by mainstream newspaper.

Therefore, I believe that it has a notability and meeting verification criteria. Hiroshi0807 (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent just pinging you in case you don't see this comment. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Keep if the interested editors fill it with reliable sources. 多少战场龙 (talk) 14:29, 11 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 Montecristo (cigar). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Montecristo No. 4[edit]

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

De-PROD'd. Monetecristo as a brand is certainly notable - and I would support a redirect - but this individual product does not appear to meet GNG in and of itself. Comment on talk page suggests that coverage "may" be available in libraries, but based on the searches I made in GBooks snippets, that is unlikely to be true. The index of the Cuban Cigar Handbook mentions the No. 4 only on one page (the same page as other numbered cigars from the brand), indicating minimal coverage. Ultimate Cigar Book doesn't mention it. Shanken's Cigar Handbook does, but only in a single sentence. The Cigar Handbook doesn't mention it at all, nor does the Cigar Companion, except to note its length. The Havana Cigar notes some basic stats but doesn't seem to otherwise discuss it.

The TLDR version is that I can't find any indication that there actually is a greater amount of coverage lurking in books. Most books don't seem to mention it at all, or if they do, it's only in tables of statistics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Cuba. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Several sources state it is the number one selling Cuban cigar in the world, and makes up nearly half of all Cuban cigars exported every year. See [9] (visible in snippet view), and Cigar Aficianado (can see the fact in the search engine blurb but not snippet view on page 34; it reads "The Montecristo No. 4, a petit corona measuring 5 inches long by 42 ring gauge thick, is, with the exception of the United States, Cuba's largest selling cigar.")4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being best-selling is not within the notability criteria anywhere on Wikipedia. If no one has bothered to write anything more in-depth about it than a single sentence, clearly being best-selling is not that important (and may not even be true - best-selling according to what stats, collected by which authority?). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the next sentence is continuing a longer discussion on the cigar, but it's not available for viewing beyond that. I suspect, although I can't prove, that these sources do have in-depth coverage and are not merely passing mentions. Hence the weak keep.4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As usual with PMC, the nom has misrepresented what I said in my deprod. I did not say that coverage "may" be available in libraries, I said that coverage definitely is available. The source I cited was The Cuban Cigar Handbook, Simon and Schuster ISBN 1646431065. There is also The Cigar Companion, ISBN 0785838422. What I did say was that I couldn't tell the depth of coverage from gbook snippets. Funny how that got twisted around into a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. I would go along with a merge, so long as it was a genuine merge and not deletion by redirect. We should at least retain that it is claimed to be the best selling Cuban, and the tasting notes, although somewhat subjective, are still encyclopaedic information. SpinningSpark 09:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, cheers, SpinningSpark, I always love the way you extend good faith to me. If you don't know for a fact that information exists in a library (some hypothetical library that you've not named or visited), then you're assuming that it exists. In other words, it "may" be there. It may not be.

I did already mention (and link) those two books in my nomination. Based on my searching through them via available snippets, neither appears to have significant coverage of the product. (As a side note, the Handbook is actually published by Cider Mill Press, and only distributed by Simon and Schuster.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer distributed by Simon and Schuster. It was recently bought by HarperCollins.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option since I don't think either Keep contradicts the deletion nomination argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Montecristo (cigar). Just dug around in the Internet Archive library for a bit and coming back empty handed, merger to the brand, where it can be handled in summary style, is the smartest way to handle this. czar 04:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article says that the #4 is the best-selling cigar, while Montecristo (cigar) says that the #2 is! Hopefully consolidating the content will help to weed out errors like this. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:50, 13 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 undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oklawaha County Laissez-Faire[edit]

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

Can't find any sources that prove this article's notability. In 2020 one of this singer's ablum articles was turned into a redirect for the same reason. I also want to nominate the rest of Gamble Rogers's albums for AFD as well. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Artist does not appear to be notable outside of the circumstances of his death, certainly couldn't find anything about his music. I've started a separate AfD for him here. QuietHere (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources since 2006 (x3) and 2007(x2). סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:03, 10 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. czar 04:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla pipeline[edit]

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

Article is too confusing - cite 2 does not mention "Tesla" - it says Turkish Stream Chidgk1 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked around and I suspect the IP editor who added cite 2 was confused with Balkan Stream or perhaps the name of the pipeline was changed before it was built Chidgk1 (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria, Greece, Hungary, North Macedonia, Russia, Serbia, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, with TurkStream. This pipeline has not yet been completed. Passes WP:GNG per the sources in the article and those available elsewhere.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ "EU approves construction of link roads for Turkish Stream". Daily Sabah. 20 November 2015. Retrieved 23 October 2022.
^ Gurbanov, Ilgar (2017). "Perspective for Turkish Stream Project: Possible Scenarios and Challenges" (PDF). Natural Gas World: 87–88.
^ B. Lana Guggenheim (18 January 2019). "Greece in Negotiations to Extend TurkStream To Europe, Through "Europe Stream"". South EU Summit. Retrieved 23 October 2022.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article will just confuse readers (I am sure as it confused me). Gas Interconnector Greece–Bulgaria and Balkan Stream are already operational. Nobody is going to build a pipeline called "Tesla pipeline". I don't blame you for being confused as the Balkans have been confusing people for at least a hundred years. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A vague proposal from 2015 with very uncertain future. Fails WP:CRYSTAL Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. (Actually, we can safely predict it's not going to be built.) No such user (talk) 09:42, 3 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!} 20:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem notable. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:47, 5 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!} 05:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RedBoxBlue[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria for bands. No significant coverage, nor notable songs or albums. Ploni^💬 16:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United Kingdom, and England. Ploni^💬 16:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage present in article at time of nomination. The group (and its leader)'s odd, modern means of rise in the music industry was the subject of sufficient coverage to justify an article. Chubbles (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Altho they do fail the usual criteria for notability for bands, there are two reasons to consider them notable. The sources are pretty solid.TheLongTone (talk) 15:07, 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!} 20:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Independent, the BBC and Guardian are solid sources. That's GNG folks. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 5 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!} 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Headliners (TV series)[edit]

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

Can't find any sources the prove the TV series's notability. - Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it appears to be unverifiable. There are apparently other television shows called "Headliners" but they are of different genres and feature different actors in shows on different networks. Any information about this specific series appears to come from mirrors of this article, which would make it either extremely obscure or potentially a hoax. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 08:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources for 15 years is too much. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:09, 10 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. Appears to be a promotional article Joyous! | Talk 21:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Velasquez[edit]

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

Promotional bio of a non-notable author sourced to unreliable 'contributor' articles and sponsored posts - the article actually boasts about how he writes for these sorts of dodgy outlets like Thrive Global and Forbes contributors... [10][11] are contributor articles, [12] is a sponsored post ("WRITTEN IN PARTNERSHIP WITH BUSINESS LEADERSHIP NETWORK"), [13] is a sponsored post (from "PR Spot"), this is a random wordpress blog, etc. Simply not encyclopedically relevant in any sense. Spicy (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Always off to a good start when the photo in the article is a copyvio, and used here [14]. That's about the only semi-RS I can find. This fellow is a long way from GNG and I'd think this was some sort of promotion or SEO article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Considering the creator said "Hope Wikipedia will get him the attention" it's obviously promotional. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's also apparently a personal trainer...WP:RESUME article for someone who is only doing that and not the actual work which should be part of a resume. Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Relatively new to Wikipedia and would appreciate if specific pointers were provided that would align this article with the guidelines of Wikipedia. For the image used, if it's an issue, I'll remove it. Other than that, the article appears self-explanatory. Naomikrate (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: I reverted an inappropriate draftification of the article. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is spam. And it would have been G5'd anyway. MarioGom (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to have mostly written via pay-to-publish programs and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 12:32, 12 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 The County Medical Examiners#Discography. Anyone is free to nominate the band's article for deletion. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 19:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Fugues and Medicolegal Medleys[edit]

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

Another album article i'm AFDing. I can not find a single source about this album. Not only that, but the wikipedia article for the band that made this article ALSO has no zero citations. So this article seems like a bust to me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero Gnews results, this is a hoax? There are discogs and the usual streaming sites, but nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Would say redirect if the band seemed hopeful but outside of the AllMusic review of their other album Olidous Operettas, I can't find any coverage for this band. Would recommend an AfD for that album and the band's page as well. QuietHere (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fourth "sourceless since 2007" thing I've seen on this AfD page. Is 2007 cursed or soemthing? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The County Medical Examiners# Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The County Medical Examiners# Discography for now. Fails WP:NALBUM – the band is definitely real, and it appears this album is as well. But it's so obscure, there's nothing that can be used as sources... it's not even available on streaming sites. And given the band's own obscurity, they could well be put up for AfD as well. Richard3120 (talk) 18:16, 12 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. Joyous! | Talk 21:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson (Nanase Aikawa album)[edit]

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

An article that hasn't been sourced since its 2007 creation. I can't find any sources that seem to mention this album so I propose either a deletion or a redirect to Nanase Aikawa Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth noting that this album apparently charted #1 on the Oricon Albums Chart. I don't know how to find that info on Oricon's website but it appears to say it charted here, and I found the initial claim here, though the unreliability of the latter is likely. I'd also hold this off until someone takes a look through Japanese sources, it seems unlikely this crossed over but coverage from publications like Oricon must exist if it really charted that well. QuietHere (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This album sold over 737,000 copies in 1998 (#36 for the year in Japan) including selling 388,000 copies in its first week, debuting at #1. Page 8-9 of this should start to clarify the notability of the album, since it is listed as double platinum already in July 1998. This article says it ended up selling over a million copies, and notes that it hit number one. A lot of sources for this kind of thing are offline, and finding reliable sources verifying this is advisable, but searching for native language sources before nominating is beneficial. Dekimasuよ! 13:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album is notable but the article as it stands either needs expansion or redirecting - we shouldn't have album articles that contain nothing more than tracklists. --Michig (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sourced right now =/= not notable enough for an article. AfD is not for punishing articles for not being cleaned up yet. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:31, 12 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 Shooting at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre rifle prone. Joyous! | Talk 21:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Krapf[edit]

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

Placed 50 at the 1948 Olympics, therefore doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS and a WP:BEFORE brought this WP article and some other Andreas Krapfs. He doesn't have a German article and the polish one is also very basic. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Austria. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre rifle prone. Not enough coverage for a standalone article but there's a clear redirect target. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre rifle prone as above - WP:ATD. I could only find passing mentions of him in the digitised Austrian press, not nearly enough for sigcov.. Ingratis (talk) 13:34, 9 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 Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. Redirect, and merge important information, if any. Joyous! | Talk 21:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regional College of Pharmacy[edit]

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

WP:MILL institue, fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG and WP:GNG with no evidence of notability. The only news coverage provided is about a sports competition in the college. Other sources only show affiliation, no significant coverage. I tried but found no other sources. Proposing redirection to Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and/or deletion. Muhandes (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as I already did, but got reverted. Not independently notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge with Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. It is indeed worthy of mention there. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:05, 7 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. Few to no sources on the notability of the event and/or person were found. Joyous! | Talk 21:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adjetey Sowah[edit]

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

The subject’s name seems common as there are numerous hits on a Google search. However almost all seem to be about multiple other people. Doing a couple of interviews about how you won some dance competitions doesn’t really make someone notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dance, and Ghana. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete I wouldn't even call the competition significant, I've not heard of it at least. Oaktree b (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Beans could not find a proper protein that improves growth. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Kindly keep this article because he is notable in the Ghanaian dancing and also he is a former dance champion. Jwale2 (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
please provide sources that prove this statement Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Truly a beautiful article. Orphaned, not notable, basic copyediting... this article is the epitome of perfection. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could try your hand at writing one rather than spend your time leaving low-effort sarcastic comments about others'. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep, but I'm holding off on a boldtext !vote because I'm just not familiar with the reliability of the sources I'm seeing. What I do see are dozens if not hundreds of news stories about this person spanning over time, and using language that indicates this is a notable dancer (in fact, and via sourcing). May revisit if someone can shed light on the reliability of e.g. B&FT Online, Modern Ghana, Ghana Weekend, GhanaWeb, Pulse, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can come up with some reliable sources about this World Dance Championship. All sources seem to reiterate the same claims from Sowah, but I can't find any indication of what championship this was, who won before or after them, ... I have seen too many similar articles with strong claims of Africans or Asians winning "prestigious" awards or championships in (usually) the UK which turn out to be some very osbcure or paid for thing they use to inflate their supposed importance. As said above, a dreadful article otherwise, but that can be fixed if the sources appear. Fram (talk) 13:31, 10 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. New sources located, "keep" trend developed Joyous! | Talk 20:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor*Ology[edit]

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

This article has zero sources and a quick look on google barely shows me anything mentioning this show, let alone prove its notability. So I am nominating this for deletion. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:54, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leslie Nielson seens the best choice.Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One reliable source from Common Sense Media is here: [15]. Not sure if there are others are not. matt91486 (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to Keep per additional sources provided by Nfitz. matt91486 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick look in Google? There needs to be a proper WP:BEFORE nomination. There's national media coverage - see ProQuest 254701666 and ProQuest 423260954. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 7 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!} 21:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Olmsted[edit]

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

deletion for WP:Notability. few sources independent of subject name him. he made no major contributions. Gibblestein (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, he did good things, but I can't find sources talking about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a good journalist, but there is not much about him. --多少战场龙 (talk) 09:12, 11 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. Procedural close, opened by a sockpuppet and no one has supported their proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Era Hill University[edit]

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

I didn't think that the University pass WP:ORG or WP:N. Some of the references mention the University briefly, but I didn't think that it satisfies the notability requirement of the University. References about notable alumni also didn't confer notability to the University. Page only permotion, Not deepth WP:SIGCOV, not meet WP:GNG. Thank you D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 5 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. Procedural close, opened by a sockpuppet and no editor has supported their proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Era[edit]

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

I didn't think that the University pass WP:ORG or WP:N. Some of the references mention the University briefly, but I didn't think that it satisfies the notability requirement of the University. References about notable alumni also didn't confer notability to the University. Page only permotion, Not deepth WP:SIGCOV, not meet WP:GNG. Thank you D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 5 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!} 21:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Iran Fajr International Challenge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and In badminton we do not make year wise articles for lower grade tournaments such as this one. The Iran Fajr International is sufficient. zoglophie 14:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Iran. zoglophie 14:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't a notable tournament. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:23, 9 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 Peru at the 1992 Summer Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Alberto Urteaga[edit]

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

Competed at the 1992 Summer Olympics but did not win a medal and I could not find sufficient notability through a WP:BEFORE search to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Peru. Suonii180 (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was a pretty big celebrity in peru for a while, especially in Lima DanielUrteagaM (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis is my dad and I wouldn't really wanna see his wikipedia page go away. Also because I want to add some info on it in the future as I am his son and he has a lot of medals and such from other events, most being from long distance and horse riding related things. -DanielUrteagaM — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielUrteagaM (talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielUrteagaM: Do you know whether your father has ever received detailed newspaper coverage? If you could show that it exists, you may be able to save his article from deletion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He showed me some newspaper stuff related to him, they were from the 90s and it was on a real piece of paper that I probably will be able to find this week or the next. What do I do once I find it though? DanielUrteagaM (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielUrteagaM: You could tell us the titles of the articles and how much they cover him (i.e. how many sentences discuss him), and maybe what newspapers they're from. You could also email me ([email protected]) images of the articles and I might be able to determine if they're WP:SIGCOV (although if the articles are not in English you might need to translate some for me). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS. Uhai (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peru at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Modern Pentathlon - WP:ATD - if no sources come to light (and it sounds likely from the above that they do exist). Ingratis (talk) 05:13, 9 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. G3 known hoaxer and his socks SpinningSpark 16:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkin Madinawa Malamai[edit]

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

No evidence of notability and fails WP:V; was tagged as a concern in January 2022. The title and its supposed holders seem to all be completely made up by the article creator, who has subsequently been blocked for obvious sockpuppetry. Part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN using fake references to disguise the fact that the articles are all unsourced and likely hoaxes. The books cited, such as Madinawa and Their Teachings, are fake as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RIS found, likely a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 17:23, 5 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:G3. Let's not waste effort on known hoaxers SpinningSpark 16:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imam Ghali[edit]

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

No evidence of existence or notability, fails WP:V. Same issues as Ahmed Abdullahi Aliyu Abdurrahim Sumaila. Appears to be part of a series of hoaxes created by sockpuppets. Cited sources are either books that do not exist or ones that do not mention "Imam Ghali Kadawa" at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I didn't find anything helpful. This fails WP:GNG. Verifiability? ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RIS found, likely a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 7 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 The Great Khali. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Wrestling Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This wrestling organisation does not meet the standard of notability set out in NCORP. This criteria states that significant coverage addressing the subject directly and in depth is required. Almost all sources both within the article and online contain only brief, passing mentions. Most sources available only briefly mention the name of the organisation in discussion of a wrestler currently associated with the organisation. There is no in depth coverage addressing Continental Wrestling Entertainment directly. Coverage often consists of quotes directly from the head of the organisation. Previous AFD has seen this deleted. Some minor improvement since, but insufficient to meet NCORP.

I should also point out that the username of the person who created this article is BlueberrySrinivas. Blueberry is a digital marketing agency, and the second part of the name links to an employee. I am assuming good faith given I have no evidence of undisclosed COI editing, and the editor denies having a COI. However I consider their response of "blueberry is my favourite fruit" to be insufficient insofar as assuaging my concerns that this is marketing for an organisation. The editor has made most of their other contributions to Wikipedia in the wrestling space using primary sources. While of course regardless of article quality, it should stay if sufficiently notable, I felt it appropriate to let contributors be aware of this factor in their decision.

This may also be suitable for a redirect to The Great Khali who founded this organisation. He is notable, however his company does not inherit his notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 'The Great Khali' would be an elegant alternative to deletion as this business does, indeed, fail WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb yeah agree, redirect to that page would work! MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Wrestling, and Punjab. Skynxnex (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly does seem to fulfill NCORP. References are not an issue. There are some reliable ones which appear on Google News when the org full name is used. I'll add them if I get the time this week. Also comparing to the earlier AfD is pointless. That was four years ago. Coverage was also low back then. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERCY applies to this vote. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Alexander - NCORP fail. All sources that are not otherwise unreliable are trivia mentions only and concentrate on former and current WWE talent. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CWE is pioneer organisation of pro wrestling in India. The country have a huge fan following of pro wrestling. The is serving as info source. You can tag it as a stub but deleting it, not appropriate according to me.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT applies to this vote. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CWE is the largest promotion in India and has over 4 million subscribers, that alone warrants a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueberrysrinivas (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original research like this is not a valid argument. You need to prove these claims with independent reliable sources and in detail as well. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There seems to be disagreement over whether this subject fails or fulfills WP:NCORP. More policy-based arguments would help bring this to a close, whether Kept or Redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Great Khali. This is an organization therefore WP:NORG applies. None of the references meet the specific criteria for establishing notability, best solution is a redirect as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Great Khali. The important information could be preserved there, and could be re-split later, if warranted. Joyous! | Talk 17:30, 7 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!} 21:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Penev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD relates to a footballer of the same name so this should be treated as a first AfD. There are many people with this name in Bulgaria, including a tennis player, but I can't find any extensive coverage of this Olympian. All that I can find are simple stats pages like the ones already cited. As Penev never came close to winning a medal, he does not meet WP:NOLY. The lack of coverage would also indicate a failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. Searches like this one only seem to come up with coverage of namesakes. I considered redirecting the article but, since he was involved in two different Winter Olympics, I can't see how I could redirect to only one of them. Outright deletion would be more beneficial to the reader. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence I can see that this meets GNG. Nom's analysis appears good. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nominator and their great analysis. there is no sufficient coverage on the subject. possible fake page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 多少战场龙 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not a "fake page" - check your facts! Ingratis (talk) 23:10, 11 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 14:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Vinkov[edit]

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

Stats stub on a semi-pro footballer with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. A Bulgarian source search yields nothing better than a brief announcement of his release from a semi-pro club and an image caption in 7sport. Vinkov is not addressed in detail so there is no opportunity to build a meaningful biography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, I can't find any English or Bulgarian language coverage that would satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:47, 10 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 Move to draft.. There is no strong support for keeping as an article, but nor is there strong support for deletion. Apart from the nomination, the only editors who have actually expressed an opinion as to what the outcome should be have suggested draftifying, and that will also keep open all options for what may become of the page in the future. JBW (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry H. Cunningham[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV presented - sourced to employer website, expired link and Twitter. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, United States of America, and New York. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, articles on academics are allowed to use their institution's website as a source. Additionally, I'm unable to find any publications by the subject. Curbon7 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft for now. Leaning keep or move to draft following improvements. It is rare for a person to become dean of an American law school without having a solid academic reputation and prior news coverage. This is lacking from the article as written, and this may be such a rare case, but more time is likely needed to allow for research of sources. BD2412 T 17:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject seems to publish as "Larry Cunningham", so the automated searches for "Larry H. Cunningham" are not useful. There are 16 papers listed here (linked at the bottom; also has a decent profile). The GS profile is [16], showing 100, 44, 29, 26, 16 citations for top papers; I don't know the field at all, but aside from the single paper, this seems relatively low to me. Not seeing any evidence of authored books. Perhaps a case of too-early career, despite the law-school deanship? I don't see the point in moving to draft; the situation on notability is not going to change materially in 6 months, but userify might be a reasonable option if the creator desires. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found some instances where he was quoted in the press on matters in the news, but nothing substantial. Still, ascendancy to a law school deanship by itself usually garners some press coverage, which may yet be discovered. BD2412 T 22:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's quite a few hits in the WL Ebsco search including a long article mainly on the fact the law school nearly went under but is now succeeding, and focusing on the president, J. Edward Bell III: Teri Errico Griffis (2021). Transparency, reinvestment bring Charleston School of Law back from the brink. South Carolina Lawyers Weekly. Also announcement: Charleston School of Law selects new dean. Charleston Regional Business Journal Apr. 3, 2020 (266 words) and some shorter ones. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect notability within legal scholarship is not the same as most fields. While his scholarship and citations don't seem substantive in quantity, his articles have been cited favorably by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, and Supreme Courts of Minnesota, Alaska, and Mississippi. Here is a list from St. John's, and I found the MN reference using Google Scholar's Case Law. Koziarke (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Academic coverage of the guy should be researched and put into the article. WP:PROF Dawkin Verbier (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:27, 5 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:G3 hoax article SpinningSpark 16:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Gha[edit]

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

Another dubious article that fails WP:V. Uses the same sources as Ahmed Abdullahi Aliyu Abdurrahim Sumaila. The one citation that might have allowed this to be notable is Al-Wali, Muhammadu (1980). History of Banu Gha. Kano: Kadawa Printing Press. I cannot, however, find any indication that such a book exists anywhere. Given that there are several other articles created with these same false sources by the same farm of editors (two of which are now confirmed socks), I believe this to be a hoax article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Islam, Morocco, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think all of these articles are some kind of elaborate hoax. Appears to be totally made up. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:59, 7 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:G3 hoax article SpinningSpark 16:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

House of Maiduniya[edit]

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

As per the 'multiple issues' tag, this article is a hoax maintained by a sock farm that also produced Ahmed Abdullahi Aliyu Abdurrahim Sumaila and several other very similar articles. The only coverage of this topic is from Wikipedia mirrors. The 'references' are mostly to non-existent books and, those that do exist, have no mention of this supposed noble family. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RIS found, likely a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 17:40, 5 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 IGN#Subsidiaries and spin-offs. Star Mississippi 16:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vault Network[edit]

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

It has had no sources since 2006 סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced for a decade and a half is more then enough to cut it loose. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IGN#Subsidiaries and spin-offs where it is mentioned and sourced to a reference. It is a possible search target regardless of whether it is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Pavlor (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm as it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 14:08, 7 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!} 22:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Power Star (Malayalam film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM This upcoming movie doesn't seems to have a notable production. Only few references about the first look poster and trailer. Sonal Mathew (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Sonal Mathew (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Draftify: It is an upcoming movie so we can't get enough sources to say it fails WP:GNG and even we can't find any review because reviews publishes after the film releases so Draftify now and then send it to WP:Articles for Creation in December 2022. Contributor008 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Agree, upcoming film which may become notable after release. S0091 (talk) 14:25, 12 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!} 05:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kax[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria for bands. No significant coverage, nor notable songs or albums. Ploni^💬 16:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and California. Ploni^💬 16:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any album reviews, other significant coverage, etc. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other relevant notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly fails WP:NBAND. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsanko Khantov[edit]

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

Competed at the 2000 Summer Olympics but did not win a medal. A WP:BEFORE search did find sufficient notabiltiy for WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Bulgaria. Suonii180 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 05:06, 9 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!} 05:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three-spired cathedrals in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

'Three-spiredness' of British cathedrals is hardly a viable subject for an article, and indeed 80% of this article is off-topic, talking about the (three) cathedrals in question, their history, characteristics etc while barely mentioning their spires and number thereof. All such information duplicates content from the cathedrals' respective articles for no benefit.
This article could make sense as a list article, but with only three cathedrals falling into the category, a list article would be ~~redundant~~ unwarranted. The three-spire link among the three cathedrals in question could be easily covered in the lead of their respective articles.
This article has also got no inter-wikis and is little more than an orphan, with the bulk of incoming links coming from User pages and the one appearance on POTD. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and United Kingdom. Deeday-UK (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was WP:BEFORE followed? Google books has a large number of sources highlighting the unusual three-spired cathedral; many of which incorrectly assert that the Lichfield Cathedral is the only cathedral with that feature in the UK. However, this book confirms that there are only three cathedrals in the UK with this architectural feature. The issues presented here by the nominator are easily solved through editing. It would not be difficult to source the article and trim material not related to the spires. It would be fine also to turn this into a list article. In short, this should never have been taken to AFD, as WP:AFD is not cleanup. 4meter4 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:BEFORE was followed. No, I don't think this article is unsourced or untidy; I think it is pointless. Just add to the Lichfield, Truro, and St Mary's cathedral articles something like "it is one of only three cathedrals in the UK that have three spires, together with XX and XX cathedral". What else is there to say on the subject? Duplicating and fragmenting information across unnecessary articles does not improve the encyclopedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't see any articles or studies particularly about '3-spired cathedrals in the United Kingdom' that would warrant creating a Wikipedia article. Because there's only three examples, there's not a great deal of point in renaming it List of three-spired cathedrals in the United Kingdom. We shouldn't be inventing a subject that hasn't been the subject of study 'off-Wikipedia' and writing about it, however interesting we think it might be. As Deeday-UK suggests above, why not add something brief to the articles on each of these cathedrals, to say they are one of only three in England? Three-spired cathedrals in the United Kingdom basically summarises what is in the main articles on each example, so it won't be missed. Sionk (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page doesn't seem to assert notability for the topic even if individual cathedrals are notable. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More of an essay than an encyclopaedia article. There's not enough literature to sustain an article on tri-spiredness. An article or list on spires of British cathedrals could possibly make for an article, but there's not really anything here that could serve as a useful starting point for such an article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 5 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 14:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ibet25[edit]

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

Couldn't find significant coverage from reliable sources about the company. Also was deleted previously. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. AmirŞah 09:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Organizations, Companies, and Malta. AmirŞah 09:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AmirŞah, I looked at the page logs and didn't see that this article had ever been deleted before. Was this deletion under a different page title? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, Hi, I saw red notice Previously deleted, when it was listed on New pages feed. AmirŞah 10:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joyplay24toto created the article in their sandbox. They moved it to article space then returned it to their sandbox. Finally they moved it back to article space and in doing so overwrote or deleted the redirect. I think that's where the previous deletion occurred. See the log. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. I could find anything notable (RS) in Google search. This particular link [17] from the page is a PR one. The others are even worse. 多少战场龙 (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not notable, it's black-hat SEO. FalconK (talk) 10:03, 12 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 03:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Haley (pentathlete)[edit]

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

He competed at the 1992 Olympics but didn't win a medal and I couldn't find much with a WP:BEFORE search. There are a few people with the same name which hindered the search a little. He is married to gymnast Henrietta Ónodi but that isn't enough to establish notability itself. Suonii180 (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and United States of America. Suonii180 (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 10 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 Uruguay at the 1992 Summer Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pereyra[edit]

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

He participated in the 1992 Summer Olympics but did not win a medal. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up enough to show sufficient notability. Suonii180 (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDATABASE, does not meet WP:GNG or any other relevant standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uruguay at the 1992 Summer Olympics - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 04:59, 9 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. JBW (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Long (writer)[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources establishing notability; searches have produced nothing that would meet criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia Drevolt (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Boardman Tasker award is well known in its subject area. There's three paragraphs of biographical detail which also states he "twice won Best Magazine Article at the Banff Mountain Film and Book Festival; and received the Boardman Tasker and American Alpine Club literary awards": Coda. By: OSIUS, ALISON, Climbing Ascent 2022, Issue 382, p60. Another couple of paras of bio here: Behind the scenes. Climbing Iss. 197, (Sep 15, 2000): 16. There is also a short bio in The Writers Directory (available via WL), which at least gives some basic bio details as well as confirming the list of books. There's also an entry in Contemporary Authors (sadly only indexed by WL). His bio at Baker & Taylor Author Biographies states The Descent was a New York Times bestseller; there are reviews for this in Publishers Weekly. May 24, 1999, Vol. 246 Issue 21, 64; Graybill, Alicia. Library Journal 5/1/1999, Vol. 124, Issue 8, and Peter Mergendahl Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO). July 4, 1999, 4E. The Ascent was reviewed in Planton, S. Library Journal. 6/1/1992, Vol. 117 Issue 10, p177. and Publishers Weekly. April 13, 1992, Vol. 239 Issue 18, p40. Deeper is reviewed: David Pitt (July 1, 2007) Booklist vol. 103, no. 21, 1 July 2007, p. 35 and Cifelli, Laura A. B. Library Journal. 7/1/2007, Vol. 132 Issue 12, p81. Year Zero is reviewed: Graybill, Alicia. Library Journal. 4/15/2002, Vol. 127 Issue 7, p126 and Zaleski, Jeff. Publishers Weekly. 4/22/2002, Vol. 249 Issue 16, p51–52. The Reckoning is reviewed Cifelli, Laura A. B. Library Journal. 7/15/2004, Vol. 129 Issue 12, p72. Empire of Bones is reviewed in Publishers Weekly. Jan 18, 1993, Vol. 240 Issue 3, p450. The Wall is reviewed in Adams, Michael. Magill Book Reviews. 11/01/2006. There is lots more on WL Ebsco search but that seems enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. I think the reason reviews aren't easy to find on the web is the pre-internet date of the earlier and better-known books (his first is 1987). Espresso Addict (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Along with the above information and references I looked at the books. They are all still available (I added dates and ISBN numbers) so I see no reason why the subject does not clear WP:NAUTHOR.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not the best-written article but that doesn't equate to deletion. The subject still meets notability guidelines as based above.GR86 (📱) 17:18, 5 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!} 00:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Groat[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass the subject notability guidelines for academics ~~or politicians~~. Most sources present lack significant coverage or are not independent, and the required sources do not surface elsewhere, therefore also failing the general notability guideline. (The CBC source has some substantial content, but I don't think it's enough by itself.) There also appear to be some copyright violations, though not blatant enough for G12. ^Complex/_Rational 02:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. ^Complex/_Rational 02:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks rather too early career to me. The apparent encyclopedia entry is as a contributor. Not sure why the nomination cites NPOL? Espresso Addict (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing it's because footnote [1] is an article about someone else's local political campaign. (It quotes Groat and gives a little background about Groat as context for the quote.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Indeed, I mentioned NPOL because it appeared that there was some mention of a city council position. I realize that I misread the source (it was not about the article's subject), so that point is moot. ^Complex/_Rational 19:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've swapped the encyclopedia reference for one directly from the University of Birmingham, since the subject was the contributor of the entry. I've added more coverage from independent sources that show he has had a substantial impact outside of academia. Please see the updates to his career section and the reference list. If there are copyright violations, they are unintentional, and I can correct them if you point them out. Thank you. Erniee jo (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the improvements to the article. I don't believe the subject meets WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR at this time but I'm open to them meeting GNG as "a leading voice on Indigenous issues". ETA If notability isn't yet demonstrable, then userification appears a reasonable outcome, if the creator desires. Meeting WP:AUTHOR in the future seems quite likely. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:TOOSOON. He does not meet WP:SIGCOV, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR at this time. TJMSmith (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. I've added independent references to his affiliations as President of the Indigenous Heritage Circle and member of the UNESCO Memory of the World National Committee to show that he meets the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC He has had a substantial impact outside academia through these organizations and as an historian who frequently comments in news media on issues related to Truth and Reconciliation in Canada. In meeting general notability guidelines, stories about Cody Groat have been independently covered by national(CBC) and local (Two Row Times, and MyKwartha) news sources. These sources have been referenced. Erniee jo (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the sources added, there's no shortage of media coverage about him, such as [this. Nfitz (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because cumulatively the amount of coverage on him in national sources is enough to pass WP:GNG. Significant coverage can be found in a number of publications which have not yet been included in the article or mentioned in the AfD discussions, such as this and this. Chagropango (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indigenous scholar involved in commemoration, outreach, extramural educational activities, etc is notable by current WP standards. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 19:14, 8 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 Partition of Gyeonggi Province. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Gyeonggi Province[edit]

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

Subject of the article is a proposed (currently non-existent) political division, article content is duplicated from Gyeonggi Province, this subject should be covered by Partition of Gyeonggi Province and does not warrant a separate article at this time. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Articles for deletion/North Gyeonggi Province. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and South Korea. AllyD (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: May be worth tossing North Gyeonggi Province in as well. Curbon7 (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both No need to duplicate Gyeonggi Province in this way for only a proposed concept. Reywas92^Talk 15:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's unclear to me whether you are advocating a redirect to Gyeonggi Province or to Partition of Gyeonggi Province.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to partition of Gyeonggi - there is no real reason for these articles to exist yet. Especially when they could be covered in that article with proper expansion. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:29, 5 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 03:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fog City Diner[edit]

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

There are no sources in this article it also fails WP:GNG. A simple google search only shows me the restaurant page. There is no coverage on this diner. It is only a little notiable because it was in a short film in 1993.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has zero sources, there are a few scattered mentions on the web, not sure they prove GNG here. Looks like food blogs and some travel sites. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brochure article. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 19:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references for 6 and a half years is too much סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Gaming Universe[edit]

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - coverage mostly consists of WP:ROUTINE announcements about investment funding. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Websites, and India. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No WP:SIGCOV anywhere. Any "coverage" is either routine announcements of blatant advertisement. Yet another piece on the top of the cryptospam pile. Merko (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:GNG, only the article in Business Line seems to be reliable, independent, and significant ([18]). The BI article is significant ([19]) but potentially unreliable, and nothing else seems to contain significant coverage. Falls far below the coverage I'd expect for a notable business in the internet era. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 04:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas K. Miller[edit]

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

It's unclear whether defensive MVP was officially awarded by the bowl game, or just from Ohio State as Liberty Bowl's website lists someone from Navy as the game's MVP. Neither this team recognition nor being inducted into a county hall of fame are enough for ANYBIO and I'm unable to find any other evidence he's notable. He does approach Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes_and_coaches from anything I can find. Star Mississippi 18:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, American football, and Ohio. Star Mississippi 18:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- More SIGCOV here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  do you know @BeanieFan11 whether WP:AUD relates to Biographies as well as N:ORG. While Ohio State has a national profile (Boo, go Irish! ;-) ), the coverage does seem fairly local. College athletes are fuzzy, which is also why I brought it here v. PROD. Star Mississippi 19:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) so no, it does not apply to people. I don't think there is any policy saying that local coverage can't count towards GNG for athletes (although sometimes for high school players non-local coverage is needed). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage provided by User:BeanieFan11. This is more than sufficient for WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 20:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Fails WP:GNG due to lack of sustained significant coverage. While there are two significant sources, they are from a span of 21 days which fails WP:SUSTAINED. If more sources are found, I'm more than happy to reconsider. Alvaldi (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep with the sources found by BeanieFan11. We now have several significant sources from three different publications, spanning a few years. Alvaldi (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are a multiple weeks apart. That's sufficient for the intentionally vague definition of "sustained," as it is certainly far enough apart to not constitute a single "burst" of coverage. Plus notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Frank Anchor 15:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will have to disagree on that part as I can't in good conscience agree that two articles three weeks apart constitute as a sustained coverage. In my opinion, it was a brief burst of news due him performing well at the start of the season. Alvaldi (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and per Alvaldi's reasoning. Had their been consistent coverage across the course of even a single season, then the coverage probably would probably constitute being sustained, but that is not the case. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sources given above seem ok-ish, that's it for sourcing? I can't find any others. If we had one more source it would help to show a more sustained coverage. 23:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Searching NewspaperArchive.com, there's also this piece of SIGCOV on Miller. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This (also from the Delaware County Daily Times) may be sigcov as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - More sigcov from that paper here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The coverage from the Delaware County Daily Times, when added with the other two sources I listed above, are enough for a weak GNG pass IMO. One of the pieces from the DelCo Daily Times was from 1979, and they seem to have coverage of him across the 1981 season (plus there's the other coverage from that season from the Akron Beacon-Journal and Dayton Daily News), so I'd say that's enough to count as "sustained coverage." Pinging @GPL93: @Oaktree b: @Alvaldi: to see their thoughts on the newly found coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep looks good to me. GNG is met. Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep Coverage provided by above voters could be enough to pass WP:GNG. Alimovvarsu (talk) 23:15, 11 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 03:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiki bar[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#Chiki bar. The article was redirected in 2007. Legoktm (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced articles like this give wiki the bad reputation people like to harp on. I don't find anything using this term other than one article talking about a restaurant. Oaktree b (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At most, one or two sentences could be added to Chickee which would render this page redundant. Chagropango (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks unsourced and verifiable resources and also is missing WP:N. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, a stub, feels like the intro to a longer essay that was forgotten about. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chickee. This appears to be a rare spelling of "chickee bar". In fact, I only found one example of "chiki bar" [20]. The lack of mention in the target article can be dealt with by the simple addition to "A few restaurants in Florida still use this..." of "A few restaurants and bars in Florida still use this..." Adding the alt spelling to the opening sentence should take care of it. SpinningSpark 23:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While redirect would be a viable AtD in normal times, it doesn't make sense given the just closed RfD and redirec or delete makes the consensus clear. Star Mississippi 03:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon: Tenth Anniversary[edit]

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

Procedural nomination from Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_22#Pokémon:_Tenth_Anniversary. The article was redirected in May 2020 with the summary, "Unsourced and fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability". Legoktm (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Pokemon article, or just delete it. It's so old at this point, anyone that remembers it won't come here to look for it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks both WP:V sources and also WP:N Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Yea this article is pretty with no sources I can find for this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pretty bad* Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glädjehuset[edit]

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

I used AFD as PROD is contested. In my opinion, this article does not pass WP:NBUILDING. While notable artists may have been here, that does not confer notability to the place. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Sweden. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Swedish wiki article is about as small as this one is. From I can see, it's not a listed heritage building Byggnadsminne by the RAA, so I don't think it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep Many famous artists played this venue when touring through Sweden. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. User:SunDawn, may I ask why you feel it is so important to remove this article? (talk)

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, all entertainment venues should be deleted. Evangp (talk) Evangp (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are trying to delete this article because you feel it isn't notable enough under wikipedia's guidelines, therefore it must be deleted to adhere to their rules. I say this because I can't think of any other explanation as to why you would give a damn about this article. My point is, with all disgusting and horrible things happening right, including propaganda on wikipedia, why are you worried about this? Evangp (talk) Evangp (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's disgusting and horrible about a music venue? Yes, it has to be notable under the wiki guidelines, that's the whole point of this little exercise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they're unsourced, they should be. One small link talking about the place doesn't indicate notability. This isn't Massey Hall in Toronto or the Opera de Paris, which have sources confirming notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete: Per Nom, Fails WP:NBUILDING -- Otr500 (talk) 21:10, 2 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!} 02:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks architectural or historic notability, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the people that may have visited or performed there before. Bryan Adams is notable but it doesn't mean that every building that he has ever set foot in is automatically notable as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The venue only existed for 12 years. If you can't cite sources that discuss the venue itself, then it's not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 9 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 03:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COG (band)[edit]

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

Uncited 13-year old Myspace band article. Fails WP:NBAND as no reliable hits found in Google, Google News, Google News Archives or Google Books. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's also another Cog band with Flynn Gower, me thinks he's not from Metro Manila. Whatever this band is, it's not at GNG. And Myspace? Frankly amazed that place is still around. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not to be confused with the band Cog from Australia (that actually has some significant coverage). No sources are present for this band, however. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 9 year old, unsourced article is unnecessary. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 05:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Sivers[edit]

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

Fails GNG. I've considered merge and re-direct to CD Baby, but the notability of the target article is also suspect. Most of contents are based from his own website and his picture was uploaded by himself. Article looks like an autobiography Graywalls (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, New Zealand, and California. Graywalls (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with Wikipedia deletion policies, but I just had to write and ask you to put the deletion of DS on hold temporarily. His entry may be his own work, but he is very respected and recommended by a number of "respectable" modern thinkers. I have recently started reading his work properly. In my view (as a 67-year old still seeking the meaning of life) his writings are hugely important. Can't someone objective please edit his entry and make information about him more accessible to the wider readership? 2A00:23C5:E153:CA01:348B:3B5C:5C4C:9E84 (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions and testimonies editors are not given weight on their own. Claims such as well respected, or by recommended by respectable members in the field must be verified by reliable sources to establish general notability. Sources used for establishing notability needs to be secondary source that is intellectually independent from the subject and reliably published. So, books written by his friends ad published through vanity presses or otherwise self published do not have any weight in this regard. While primary sources are not prohibited and they're alright for confirming basic details such as their place of birth, where they live or birthday, they should only be used very sparingly. Graywalls (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much of anything found, brief mentions [21] and [22]. He's a prolific writer, with ample citations in Gscholar, but nothing substantial. I can't find any reviews on sites we'd consider RS, the best was on medium, which is not a good source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's even done a TED talk that's gotten many mentions online, but I can't fine anything in RS. Feels like he should be at GNG, but I can't find anything we can use. His H index using google is 5, but I'm not sure what that represents. [23]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 5 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.

[1] "EU approves construction of link roads for Turkish Stream". Daily Sabah. 20 November 2015. Retrieved 23 October 2022.

[2] Gurbanov, Ilgar (2017). "Perspective for Turkish Stream Project: Possible Scenarios and Challenges" (PDF). Natural Gas World: 87–88.

[3] B. Lana Guggenheim (18 January 2019). "Greece in Negotiations to Extend TurkStream To Europe, Through "Europe Stream"". South EU Summit. Retrieved 23 October 2022.

[1]

[2]

[3]