Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 07	November 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep the content. Without a strong case being made for deletion, the merger discussion can move to the Talk page. Star Mississippi 22:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cosnino, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Having reexamined this, I continue to dispute that this was a specific settlement. The estates mentioned are a subdivision a mile to the north; the school reference is fairly passing and doesn't indicate where the school actually was. There certainly isn't a settlement there now; from all I can tell it is a vague locale centered around the eponymous rail siding. Mangoe (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The City of Flagstaff government consistently identifies Cosnino as a community outside of Flagstaff city but within the Greater Flagstaff area e.g. "Areas outside of the City of Flagstaff city limit boundaries: Doney Park, Cosnino, Kachina Village, Mountainaire, Williams, Winslow, Leupp, Munds Park, Sedona, Prescott" ([1]) and "the area within the FMPO boundaries but outside of City limits, including the outlying communities of Kachina Village, Mountainaire, Winona, Cosnino, Doney Park, Timberline, Fort Valley, and Bellemont." ([2]). I've wikilinked these to demonstrate every single one has an article as either a CDP or unincorporated community. If you think the City of Flagstaff government doesn't officially recognize Cosnino as a populated place or settlement there are a number of PDF reports on their website mentioning it that will need to be refuted (for example "Traffic calming on Cosnino Road, within the community of Cosnino...Residents of Cosnino identified speeding as a significant concern": [3]). Note that the coords in the article point to the rail siding, whereas the settlement is currently centered further north. Simply not seeing buildings at the coords in the article is not a reason to delete, the coords should be updated based on official City of Flagstaff maps etc. As to the school reference being "passing" that's irrelevant, as it's included to demonstrate that a settlement existed to the extent that a dedicated school district was deemed necessary (it's disposal is mentioned here). There was also a community club ([4]). There are clearly no grounds for deletion here. At the very least a merge might be proposed per WP:GEOLAND.----Pontificalibus 12:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GEOLAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coconino County, Arizona. I'm not impressed by the City of Flagstaff coverage that purportedly confers legal recognition; we normally expect a formal designation such as incorporation, not just a mention in a city document. Cities often discuss subdivisions, small communities, etc that they provide services to even though they're not officially recognized and often wouldn't meet our notability criteria.

As for the school, do we know what area it covered? In the early 20th century it was common for small schools to serve pupils spread out across a rural area; the actual location of the school wouldn't necessarily have been a population center large enough to support a school in and of itself.

Given the lack of official recognition and dearth of content, I think it makes sense to cover it within the county article until it is expanded, if that ever happens. –dlthewave ☎ 03:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am finding plenty of content about Cosnino on NewspaperArchive, including hundreds of articles. There are so many articles that it's been hard to sift though. I've gone ahead and expanded the article, including info on the Cosnino school and the telegraph office. I also found 1960 population data in World Book Encyclopedia. More work will need to be done, but given that Cosnino had a regular newspaper column in the Coconino Sun in the 1920s, and is also discussed in other state papers (Prescott, Phoenix, Tucson) from the 1880s to the 1980s, this is a notable community. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing that this is referred to a lot as a locale. However, as such, WP:GEOLAND doesn't give you much to go by, and WP:GNG has typically been a bar too high for locales to clear; it's why, for instance, city neighborhoods do not normally get articles unless they have a reputation from outside the area. I don't see that here. Locals know about it as an area, but nobody else does. And I know this is an unpopular view, but by and large, assembling a settlement article out of newspaper references is original research. For example, there is a "Pindell School Road" around here, and presumably there was a Pindell School, but there wasn't any Pindell as a town-like thing. Mangoe (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PTI-609[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable chemical compound. There is only one reference; it’s a primary source and there doesn’t appear to be any secondary coverage. In the twelve years since the cited reference was published, there has been no follow up. In addition, the primary author of the paper, Hoau-Yan Wang, is under investigation for research fraud and has already had several of his publications retracted as a result. (https://retractionwatch.com/2022/03/30/five-studies-linked-to-cassava-biosciences-retracted - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/18/health/alzheimers-cassava-simufilam.html - https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/messenger/2022/05/27/the-next-theranos-an-alzheimers-drug-and-a-cuny-professor-face-questions-over-research-validity/ ) I don’t know if this particular paper is part of the fraud investigation or not, but it’s certainly risky to attach the credibility of a Wikipedia article to a single unreliable author. Overall, the subject of this article lacks notability and the sourcing for the content is insufficient. Reba16 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's another paper (by the same authors) that also talks about it. This is probably not an improvement; nothing that cites it goes into any nontrivial depth.
Burns, Lindsay H.; Wang, Hoau-Yan (January 2010). "Ultra-Low-Dose Naloxone or Naltrexone to Improve Opioid Analgesia: The History, the Mystery and a Novel Approach". Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics. 2: CMT.S4870. doi:10.4137/CMT.S4870. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 07:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sourcing, in a context where we might be inadvertently perpetrating a fraud. Thparkth (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 22:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Reach[edit]

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

No indication of why this software, nearly 10 years old, is notable. No recent coverage. Website redirects to another company. Step hen 22:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Websites. Step hen 22:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several Gsearch links to a sponsored post by a company with the same name from 2019, not sure if it's even related to this one. I find nothing for this software otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any sources that are both 1. not sponsored post and 2. not a listing (sigcov). The sources on the article do not have significant coverage of the software and it looks like betakit does not distinguish sponsored posts. Looks like the AI sponsored posts are the same thing. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:22, 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 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. Star Mississippi 15:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Levin (ambassador)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Search for sources comes up with an American rabbi with the same name. LibStar (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable person fails GNG. Lightburst (talk) 23:51, 14 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!} 04:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Dancesport Championship[edit]

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

Insufficient notability demonstrated; mentioned mostly and nearly exclusively in passing by reliable sources. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Events, and Australia. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:01, 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 delete. Star Mississippi 15:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdon Atangana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Comparison with academic papers published in journals, mostly predatory or pay-to-publish, in particular comparison of the types of language error that run at almost one per sentence, show a strong likelihood that this article is self-written. Quite simply it is fantastical to claim this person is the number one mathematician in the world or the number one academic researcher in Africa. He has had many papers retracted, as can be verified at Retraction Watch, where there is also copious other relevant information. This page was deleted before. I don't know how it came to be recreated. It should be deleted again, and a watch should be kept out for any attempt to recreate it. JJ209 (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, Cameroon, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, more or less per the previous AfD. His raw citation counts are higher now but heavy self-citation and heavy use of predatory publishers make me unwilling to rely on those numbers for notability. And beyond that, we have only "heavily cited researcher is also frequently retracted" from Retraction Watch, not a great basis for an article on a BLP. Protection is called for if this is deleted, because of its re-creation after a previous deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- PS from the early history of the article, in which the creator added the Retraction Watch info and then was one of many participants working to keep that information in the article through a big edit war with anonymous removers, I have complete good faith that this was not a COI re-creation. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to have been two listings for this fellow, I commented on the other one. I don't see GNG or PROF. Most of this article is about his math formula, not much enough about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My take is that there are mild cases for WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1 & 3 and WP:GNG:
1. Mathscinet citations aren't high for analysis and there are research concerns (already expressed by others here); there probably isn't enough from the research side to pass WP:NACADEMIC#1.
2. The subject being a fellow (not just a member as stated in the current article) of The World Academy of Science (link) lends some credible claim to WP:NACADEMIC#3. It's somewhere between a minor and non-notable societ[y] and a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society.
3. There's mild support for WP:GNG from the local news articles IOL 1 and IOL2, but the two articles are very similar and mostly interview-based. Almost but not quite.

So this isn't actually too far off from being notable, but it still doesn't quite meet these or any of the other standard criteria. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite it is claimed that this person is the number one mathematician in the world, he is not a rated researcher by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (see [5]) which is the most important agency for evaluating researcher in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSpo (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC) — MarkSpo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Question: if this ends in delete, should the Atangana–Baleanu derivative and integral also be trimmed from the fractional calculus article? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The section there seems in reasonable proportion. That said, it suffers from multiple instances of the telltale omission of indefinite and definite articles, a language error which is also frequently apparent in many of Professor Atangana's papers and in his own entry that may be about to be deleted (again), so the section in the fractional calculus article should perhaps be looked at carefully. Notability of the AB derivative and integral can usefully be discussed on the talk page there. Personally I feel they pass the notability test. JJ209 (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: insufficient notability in reliable independent sources. Predatory journals and self-citation are not reliable. But I agree that the Atangana-Baleanu subsection in the fractional calculus article should stay. This is assuming someone can find a few serious references (by researchers who are not Professor Atangana himself), which it seems to me as a non-mathematician that they probably can, but in any case that's a matter for discussion in relation to the FC page not this one. Jeeely (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)— Jeeely (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and warn the editor of any further recreations of the page. The page is only about spam and selbpromotion. --多少战场龙 (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted to a much earlier version of this article that does not include so many maths formulae and so much self-aggrandisement - just to give the article its best shot at being kept. I am not sure it meets the criteria even now. But the presumably bona fide Springer book Derivative with a New Parameter: Theory, Methods and Applications (978-0081006443) perhaps leaves a small room for doubt? JJ209 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has unreverted and also removed the deletion discussion notice. I will de-unrevert. JJ209 (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His work has also been referred to in the New Scientist magazine: "How an upgrade on calculus is taking maths into uncharted territory". Both the Springer book and the New Scientist article should be referred to in the "best version" of the article. I haven't got time to add them. Sorry! Can someone else add them please?JJ209 (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New Scientist is a sensationalist rag, not a reliable source. XOR'easter (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Information: I have revised this article to try to bring it up to standard. I don't know whether I have been successful, so perhaps it should still be deleted. But it is now far more like a normal Wikipedia article than it was. Can contributors to the deletion discussion please read the revised version and say what they think. Although I proposed the deletion, I am in two minds about it now. The subject is not the number one mathematician in the world, but he has made a contribution to a legitimate field of mathematics and the New Scientist magazine is a reliable secondary source. JJ209 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematics in Africa started to edit this article disruptively again (putting it back to its previous lengthy self-aggrandising "number one mathematician in the world" form) as soon as he was unbanned. I have reverted to my constructive edit. Sadly I think he may act the same way again and have to be banned again, but as a note to my rv I told him he was welcome to participate in the discussion on this page. Mathematics in Africa also removed the AfD template, but this has been restored. JJ209 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some may find it strange that an article that FlyingFoxBoi wrote some time ago was deleted using false information. The key justification is that according to the Stanford ranking, he was ranked number 1 in general mathematics and number 186 in other subjects. Additionally, it was said that there was no credible source for the statements. Nevertheless, I know the source. https://elsevier.digitalcommonsdata.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/3, table https://elsevier.digitalcommonsdata.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/3/files/b3e31af2-054c-4b3a-b9c5-6fd9bf10557a. Anyone can verify these statements here. "

Description

Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly available database of over 100,000 top-scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h-index, co-authorship adjusted hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions and a composite indicator. Separate data are shown for career-long and single year impact. Metrics with and without self-citations and ratio of citations to citing papers are given. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 176 sub-fields. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists who have published at least 5 papers. Career-long data are updated to end-of-2020. The selection is based on the top 100,000 by c-score (with and without self-citations) or a percentile rank of 2% or above.

The dataset and code provides an update to previously released version 1 data under https://doi.org/10.17632/btchxktzyw.1; The version 2 dataset is based on the May 06, 2020 snapshot from Scopus and is updated to citation year 2019 available at https://doi.org/10.17632/btchxktzyw.2". Nearly every top university in the globe is recognizing this list; here are just a few examples: "https://lsa.umich.edu/psych/news-events/all-news/faculty-news/stanford-university-names-world-s-top-2—scientists—2021.html"

It was also asserted that the author self-cited himself and had published in predatory publications. However, because all self-citations were removed during the selection of highly cited scholars, the assertion stated is untrue because "https://recognition.webofscience.com/wos-op/awards/highly-cited/2021/methodology/" holds a different perspective on the subject.

Strangely enough, knowing the history of black people in South Africa, I'm willing to wager that the person who brought up NRF may have some problems with Atangana personally. It is therefore very odd that only two South African mathematicians have been chosen as fellows of The World Academia of Science, the first in 2003 and the second in 2022 (Atangana), if this very important grade is actually so essential. Given that he only received his PhD in 2013, it also appears that he is one of the youngest candidates ever chosen.

Strangely enough, knowing the history of black people in South Africa, I'm willing to wager that the person who brought up NRF may have some problems with Atangana personally. It is therefore very odd that only two South African mathematicians have been chosen as fellows of The World Academia of Science, the first in 2003 and the second in 2022 (Atangana), if this very important grade is actually so essential. Given that he only received his PhD in 2013, it also appears that he is one of the youngest candidates ever chosen.

The next prize (https://twas.org/article/abdon-atangana-wins-twas-hamdan-award) is further evidence of his notoriety, although UNESCO and TWAS have lost respect for him as a result of his name. Mathematics in Africa (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please provide exact sources for rankings of Professor Atangana's work by creditable institutions which state that they have disregarded self-citations. The page at webofscience.com does not say that self-citations were disregarded. It says "All Highly Cited Researcher records are reviewed for any research behavior which would detract from demonstrating true community-wide research influence. Factors such as retractions, misconduct, and extreme self-citation are all considered—and may lead to an author not being considered as a candidate for our list." That is not the same as saying they calculate rankings after disregarding all self-citations.

2. Do you have any objections to the Abdon Atangana article as it stands? Would you prefer the article to be deleted, kept in its present form, or changed? If you would prefer it to be changed, in what way and why?

3. What are your points relevant to the deletion discussion when you refer to the NRF, UNESCO, and TWAS? JJ209 (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I want you to acknowledge right now that the rating indicated in the preceding post is accurate.

2. I want you to acknowledge that the claim made about the citations is unfounded, as his web of science account demonstrates.

3. NRF is subjective and local and cannot be used to rank any world class researcher

4. He is distinguished since he is the second mathematician in South Africa to be elected as a fellow of the international academy of science.

5. He is the first African mathematician to join as a fellow of African academia of science under the age of 40,"https://www.aasciences.africa/affiliates"

6. He is the pioneer of several concepts in mathematics that are used all over and have made subject of several special issue, books, PhD thesis and many others.

I have modified the article to also reflect his achievement as a 37 years old African Mathematicians, I am sure JJ209 will not deny the notability of this Young Talent.

7. I have checked all the retraction notes, i noticed that in all he disagreed therefore such section should not be included. For example, i have read (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042719306272?via%3Dihub) two methods are the same but one is not reliable this make no sense. Mathematics in Africa (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2004 World Championship of Ski Mountaineering. Viable ATD as he's mentioned there. Star Mississippi 15:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Bargiel[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer with no medal record. Did a before search, that brought up no third party sources to establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 19:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find enough to show WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to 2004 World Championship of Ski Mountaineering where his name is mentioned. He placed 10th in a larger event. My rule of thumb would be to consider him notable if he placed in the top 3; in either case WP:NSPORT does not appear met either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Junior Track and Field Championships[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT for lack of third party coverage. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BEFORE failure. I'm getting almost 1,000 hits for "Canadian Junior Track and Field Championships" (in quotes!) at Proquest. The nominator has failed Before by not doing either item C (alternatives to deletion) or item D (search for additional sources). Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes notability. See here. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was named the Bell (telephone company) Canadian Junior Track and Field Championships or some variation of that, depending on the sponsor. It's still an event in Canada. This article is only current to 2014 and needs an update. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 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 no consensus or more specifically there is consensus against deletion. The question of whether to redirect or keep as a standalone article can be hashed out on the talk page if desired. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Baranowsky[edit]

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

The sources cited in the article are either trivial mentions or are non-independent, and do not demonstrate notability. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Psychology. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a book review for one of her books: Angel Tsang, "Trauma Practice — Tools for Stabilization and Recovery (Second and Expanded Edition)", East Asian Archives of Psychiatry 2011;21:170, via EBSCOhost. Beccaynr (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
via ProQuest, she is also quoted as an expert in news sources:
- "Help for Traumatized Frontline Workers" Canada AM - CTV Television; Toronto Toronto: CTV Television, Inc. (Sep 20, 2000) ProQuest 190433126 (guest on show, "Anna Baranowsky, Traumatologist")
- "Millions feeling radiated distress" Mitchell, Alanna. The Globe and Mail; 18 Sep 2001: A.7. ProQuest 384309646 "said Anna Baranowsky, a psychologist who is a director of the Canadian Traumatic Stress Network."
- "Ottawa `couldn't cope' if attacked: Counsellors would be overwhelmed" Rogers, Dave. The Ottawa Citizen; 08 Oct 2001: C1. ProQuest 240502086 "Anna Baranowsky, a trauma psychologist who spoke at the workshop, said"
- "In a hard year, 'Christmas Lite': offers the balm of a silent night" Mitchell, Alanna. The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. 22 Dec 2001: F.6. ProQuest 384250273 "says Anna Baranowsky, a clinical psychologist who is executive director of the Traumatology Institute in Canada"
- "Airline mag plans Sept. 11 cover story" The Gazette; Montreal, Que. 31 Aug 2002: A18. ProQuest 433846297 "Anna Baranowsky, a psychologist specializing in post-traumatic stress syndrome"
- "Holocaust weighs heavy on the second generation" Neuberger, Adi. Canadian Jewish News; Don Mills, Ont. 20 Nov 2003: 44. ProQuest 351432066 "according to trauma expert Anna Baranovsky." "said Baranovsky, a psychologist and second-generation survivor."
- "Coping with disasters that leave life long scars" CTV News - CTV Television; Scarborough [Scarborough]. 03 Aug 2005: 1. ProQuest 190643010 (guest on show) "DR. ANNA BARANOWSKY (Traumatology Institute)"
- "Compassion fatigue: a hazard of caring too much" Johne, Marjo. Medical Post; Chicago Vol. 42, Iss. 3, (Jan 24, 2006): 19. ProQuest 228826336 "Dr. Anna Baranowsky (PhD), a psychologist and director of the Traumatology Institute (Canada) in Toronto, says"
- "OPP officers reveal their secret suffering: Culture of denial, shame obscures devastating impact of post-traumatic stress triggered by long-ago violence" Rush, Curtis; Casey, Liam. Toronto Star; 06 Oct 2012: A.1. ProQuest 1086509332 "Anna Baranowsky, a clinical psychologist who works with police officers in private practice, points out" "adds Baranowsky, CEO of the Traumatology Institute in Toronto and author of What Is PTSD? 3 Steps to Healing Trauma."
- "No more pencils, no more books? Fall blahs still hit adults: Even years after leaving school, end of summer can renew tension felt as kids, experts say" Ballingall, Alex. Toronto Star; 06 Sep 2015: A.1. ProQuest 1709592873 "Anna Baranowsky, a psychologist, said" (discussing trauma)

Beccaynr (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoted as an expert in coverage of something else" doesn't help to bolster notability. In order to count as a GNG-building source, a citation has to represent her being the subject being spoken or written about by other people, not her being the speaker or writer of coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I think there is some secondary support for notability when a subject is identified as an expert, there does not appear to be sufficient support for WP:BASIC notability here, and similarly, per WP:NPROF#7, A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Traumatology Institute (Canada). On ProQuest, What is PTSD? 3 Steps to Healing Trauma is cited in a scholarly journal ProQuest 1867569610, even though it is self-published by CreateSpace, but I have not found full reviews for any works beyond the one noted above, so WP:AUTHOR does not appear supported, and support for WP:NPROF#7 seems WP:TOOSOON based on media coverage/evidence of substantial impact outside of academia. There is some career/biographical information and recognition as an expert in the media coverage, but it seems insufficient to support WP:BASIC notability for a standalone article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 20:24, 27 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!} 21:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Proquest references are compelling - and over an extensive period of time. Looking in Proquest, there's more, such as A psychological blow; Already reeling in a post 9-11 world, the crash in Queens sends travellers into a spin - ProQuest 270085244 Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [Traumatology Institute (Canada)]]. A lot of mentions/namechecks, but nothing significant. HCIhistory (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to have at least 4 works on GS with triple-digit citations. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 19:22, 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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW, WP:NOTCLEANUP; this is a level 5 vital article with only two delete votes— the nom (who grossly misapplies all cited policies and guidelines) and one other whose argument is entirely a personal fringe POV that doesn’t even make sense as a deletion reason (“it doesn’t exist any more, delete it”?). (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomboy[edit]

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

Nominating this article iaw WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:COATRACK and WP:EXPLODE. The article contains a significant quantity of original research (I removed it, and then reverted the removal prior to nominating it here). The encyclopaedic material belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia, not crammed into this article. Wiktionary has a good article about the word "Tomboy"[[6]]. There may be scope for an article about The Tomboy in feminism - but this isn't it, so WP:EXPLODE applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Springnuts (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term is a remnant from earlier history. I'm sure that every girl born after 1930 is a tomboy to some extent; "not a tomboy" is absolute and doesn't fit any girl born after 1930. I know only one girl who isn't a tomboy in any way; she's a fairy tale character. I have a hint on her name; it has 2 words; the first word is something that occurs up north in January but rarely occurs in Florida; the second is a color. Can you guess her name?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That has absolutely nothing to do with if this article should be kept or not. There are a lot of things that stopped existing prior to 1930 which still have articles on Wikipedia. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:50EE:186D:DBB:626D (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending my !vote to be interpreted as meaning that this classification is not as natural today as it was traditionally. Georgia guy (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dictionary definitions are simply definitions of words. This is an article about a concept, and one that has received plenty of coverage (there have been several books written about it, for example), and as such is a perfectly good topic for an encylopedia article, irrespective of any flaws that may currently exist. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Although I agree to keep it, I prefer that there is a generalized review of the entire content, as there is a range of fragments in which partial discourse and militancy are perpetuated, which is not characteristic of an encyclopedic article. Therefore, as an encyclopedic article, the page should focus on history, and only on it, because the section related to history is really very impoverished, especially when it comes to Hatshepsut and Joan of Arc who could very well be inserted in this article in return for dictionary shortcomings and militancy, I think there should be a Wiktionary article on the term and a separate page on the Tomboys' relationship to modern media for the LGBT+/feminist crowd to enjoy. In addition, the idea of "Tomboy" is not limited to the literature and has existed since antiquity. Therefore, I am in favor of creating the The Tomboy in feminism article and reformulating the present article.--The Young Prussian (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely on the expansion of the history section generally and also specifically with relation to Joan D'Arc. JC aka JtheKid15^{(Communications)} 20:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The word has more than enough reliable sources to show notability as a term and as a concept. Yes, the article does contain a lot of unsourced content which is likely OR. Deletion is not cleanup and nothing here seems drastic enough to justify WP:TNT. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. It's clearly notable topic. Article needs to be improved and copyedited, not deleted. I really enjoy yuri manga about tomboys, so I may be not impartial here.a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 21:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim some of the over-the-top language peppered throughout the article. For example, in the lede, the statement that a tomboy "fails to uphold their allegiance" to femininity, what does that even mean? BD2412 T 04:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs serious cleanup as it is insufficiently sourced and some of the text appears to be non-neutral in terms of its presentation of gender stereotypes. But the concept of "tomboy" is notable as a concept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It makes no sense to delete an article on a clearly notable concept (not just a term) simply because the article needs improvement. It makes even less sense to start improving the article and then add original research back in just so it looks more delete-able. --Equivamp - talk 12:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only delete reasons give seem more personal and political in nature, not in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:50EE:186D:DBB:626D (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly needs some work, but I reject that the topic amounts to dictionary definition. Tomboy is a mode of female social behaviour with half a millennium of documented history. The article's coverage of this form of female gendered behaviour isn't coat-racking, it's addressing the topic directly. SFB 18:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, article needs some serious work and improvement but to me clearly stands above any classic example of a dictionary definition. The concept of 'Tomboy' itself is a notable and important part of, for example, the LGBT+ community which explores in depth the concepts of gender stereotypes and their relation to and affect on identity. JC aka JtheKid15^{(Communications)} 20:48, 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 nomination withdrawn.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipple (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Cowan Clark[edit]

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

Sources nor article demonstrate notability. WP:BEFORE returns little. Fails WP:NBIO. Skipple ☎ 17:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Women. Skipple ☎ 17:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: May pass WP:NPROF#3 as a fellow of the American Physical Society. Curbon7 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the status of APS fellowship, she is also a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is #3 conferring, so keep. Curbon7 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, an APS fellowship IS sufficient to confer notability per WP:NPROF, and there are literally hundreds of physicist articles included in WP on that basis. PianoDan (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this information PianoDan, I wasn't aware of this when I made the nomination. Skipple ☎ 17:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skipple. Given that info, and the sources since found, would you consider withdrawing the nomination so it can be speedily closed? If you're not already familiar, you can find the procedure at WP:WITHDRAWN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the infobox claim that she was a distinguished professor (NPROF C5) is verified. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verified. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: here's another source with significant coverage: Byers, Karlyn (2 September 1995). "Governor Honors Powell Woman". The Delaware Gazette. p. 3. Retrieved 8 November 2022 – via Newspapers.com. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- She's also given lengthy treatment in Ware, Jane (1990). An Ohio State Profile: A Year in the Life of America's Biggest Campus. New York: W. Morrow. pp. 131–133. ISBN 978-0-688-08393-9. Mostly quoted material, but the parts in the author's voice are enough to meet sigcov. I'm definitely a Keep on this per WP:NBASIC, with the sources mentioned in this discussion being enough to demonstrate the pass. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BASIC and WP:NPROF. In addition to the sources above and in the article, she has an entry in this reference work: Jacqueline Jones Royster (2003). "Bunny Cowan Clark". Profiles of Ohio Women, 1803-2003. Ohio University Press. p. 174. 4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable under WP:BASIC and WP:NPROF per the evidence shared above. Topshelver (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Kansas, and Michigan. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:05, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Fago[edit]

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

No sources for her and I can't find anything out there to establish notability, fails WP:GNG . Non-notable actress. fails WP:Nactor. Yandeńo (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. Yandeńo (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable actors have lots of reviews, feature articles, etc. Nothing will be lost by deleting this stub. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does anyone know anything about the two sources listed in the article? Dflaw4 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is important?Yandeńo (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. You claim that there are no sources and that the subject fails WP:GNG. But such an assertion may be proved wrong based on the contents of those two sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on Newspapers extended. IMDB (not an RS, but sometimes it provides bread crumbs for research) says she was in Augustine (2012) but there's no there there. WP:GNG failure. BBQboffin (talk) 06:58, 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. While a valid ATD, it is unclear whether a redirect to Scarisbrick would be helpful, so i have not created one. Star Mississippi 15:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life (UK organisation)[edit]

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

This page subsisted on the organisation's website. I trimmed it back to its secondary sources. Alas, no significant depth, just significant rs dearth. It appears the rs' cover the organisation's various controversies but the coverage doesn't feature this page's subject. There's a little more sig cov surrounding the Tampon tax controversy but to spin it into anything more than a stub would involve barrel scraping. Eichhornia Crassipes (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Jack Scarisbrick - I can't find anything significant about the organisation which isn't primarily about the founders. I think it would be reasonable to have most of what is currently on the page in a section there. JMWt (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets (now) WP:ORG. I have added some more material (interestingly including a couple of very recent academic books) and there is now sufficient independent RS material to meet WP:GNG. Watch out for WP:GOOGLEONLY - relevant material is not easy to find when searching for "Life" gets rather a lot of hits! Springnuts (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post a link to the sig cov regarding Life and the Tampon Tax controversy, please? I couldn't find anything. Springnuts (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment It's not really significant coverage. If anything, they're an extra in story about how the UK government allocated the funds. I got these results by putting "Life" + Tampon Tax site:theguardian.com into Google. So do you think this subject is broad enough for the three pages it currently occupies? Life (UK organisation), Jack Scarisbrick, Nuala Scarisbrick. I'll vote keep if you can convince me it has enough GNG to stand as a separate subject to its founders.Eichhornia Crassipes (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Agreed, what comes up here is a mere passing mention. Well, maybe a little more, but not significant. Springnuts (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article overstates the importance of the Scarisbricks; relying on the friendly but uncritical (in the academic sense) Tablet source to support crediting them as “the” founders, instead of two leading members of the breakaway SPUC group which set Life up. When not working from a phone screen, I’ll try to rebalance so that Life is properly situated where the more academic sources place it, in the overall anti abortion movement generally and as a SPUC breakaway in particular. Springnuts (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh, in respect of the Scarisbricks, my initial guess is that he is probably notable, she probably is not notable. In our terms of course: all people are notable as people. But I have not searched for the sources. Were are all the articles created at the same time? Springnuts (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet WP:NORG criteria for establishing notability, none contain in-depth "Independent Content" as required, most are passing mentions or quotes. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing – no substantial coverage with roots. Notability is entirely dependent on the founders, and as we know, notability is not inherited.. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonica Rokaya[edit]

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

News which are provided are Non-RS and WP:BIO doesn't meet notability guidelines to be here on Wikipedia plus article looks like WP:ADV. DIVINE (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DIVINE (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails basic criteria for Notability and WP:ENT as well. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fan pages, biofamous website biography, then the videos. Not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 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 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 14:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Atack[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 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 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 14:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Siswick[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 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 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 14:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Parkes[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Ball[edit]

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

Notability. I don't think a single obit is enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps in general a single obit wouldn't be enough to establish notability, but the obituary is in Nature, a reliable source, and calls him, "one of the recognised authorities in Assyriology". He's a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. His 1899 book, Light from the East, or the Witness of the Monuments was reviewed in The Times, The Guardian, Church Times, Pall Mall Gazette, The Morning Post, and Athenaeum according to this advertisement[7]. His book Chinese and Sumerian (1913) was reviewed in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology[8], The New China Review[9], Athenaeum[10], Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society[11], The Expository Times[12], The Open Court[13], and I don't think this is an exhaustive list. Jahaza (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above. I will add that Ball's books, though 100+ years old, are widely held in libraries [14]. Topshelver (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Jahaza that this many published reviews of multiple books is enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, I'm convinced by the above.TheLongTone (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Townsend[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding any coverage in Newspapers.com or ProQuest. There do appear to be multiple individuals named Harry Townsend who are involved with rugby in various capacities (e.g. coaching) but they don't seem to match up with this one age-wise. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:59, 14 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 14:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Strutt[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 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 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 14:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Hammond (rugby league)[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 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 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 14:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Colbeck[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 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 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 14:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Smith Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 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 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 14:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Sunderland (rugby league)[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 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 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. Noting that the previous PROD deletion was of a different subject. ✗plicit 14:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Miles[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 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 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 14:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James France (rugby league)[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very, very minor encyclopedic significance as a player. --Melchior2006 (talk) 15:34, 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 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 14:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Harkin (rugby league)[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 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 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 14:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hale (rugby league)[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 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 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 14:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. Aldridge[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaimin AG[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources are either PR releases, from crypto-centric news organizations (WP:NCRYPTO), or from likely non-reliable sources (e.g., game-news24.com). I'm not finding coverage online that suggests that the subject is notable. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 14:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Cryptocurrency, and Companies. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 14:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - G11 really - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Investing News Network and a Zimbabwe newspaper turn up in Gsearch, some press release stuff on Yahoo News Singapore. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 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 delete. However if you want to work on this @Govvy: (or anyone else), I'm happy to provide it in draft. Star Mississippi 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beagley[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found, either passing mentions or sources which aren't independent. Fram (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Of course there is evidence of notability, in all those cites, I only saw one good one. People use their words so badly these days, does a biography qualify under notability guidelines would be a nicer view. However he is young, has potential. Why people are so averse to football players and the football project these days I do not know. Govvy (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About half of this website is articles about footballers, we're not exactly averse to having them on Wikipedia. If you've got evidence of Wikipedia notability, provide it. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:50, 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. ✗plicit 14:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Taylor[edit]

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

Promotional BLP with no RS-- links are all primary and/or irrelevant. I could not find anything to establish the notability of the subject. The article's existence was challenged in 2007 at User talk:Delicasso#Patricia Taylor, with no reply. Blue Edits (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She showed up at the Oscars with Keanu Reeves, she's his mother? I don't see much we can salvage. I didn't find any reviews of her books. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After some cursory Googling, Keanu Reeves' mother appears to be an English costume designer, so probably a different person entirely. Blue Edits (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Un unremarkable name like this hinders searching, but I couldn't see anything & certainly the sources are less than convincing, to put it kindly.TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding significant coverage in reliable sources Mujinga (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly promotional article which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Search in Wikipedia Library turned up many articles in Cosmopolitan like this one from 2010 and at least one similar article in Redbook where she is quoted as a sex educator giving advice, but nothing immediately apparent that looks like SIGCOV about her to merit her own article. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. Promotional article on a subject who has quoted a handful of times in reliable sources, but not actually received significant coverage themself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:03, 14 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. WP:SNOW close; 13 keeps, 0 deletes, small minority of third choice votes (so obviously no meaningful alternative interpretation of consensus there). It may need massive trimming but that falls under WP:NOTCLEANUP (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Genshin Impact characters[edit]

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

Trivial characters, mostly a list of WP:GAMEGUIDE material, including weapon, in-universe description, rarity (whatever that means) and status. The actual notable stuff, design, reception and controversy, can easily be part of main article Genshin Impact. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while most of the individuals are not notable enough for an article themselves, overall characters have gotten plenty of coverage. Merging this to the main article would make that article excessively long. Weapon, rarity, and element are inherent characteristics of the characters so including them in a list like this makes sense, similar to what we do with the various lists of Pokémon. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while I've anecdotally seen a lot of coverage out there for these characters, this may also be a WP:TNT situation too, as it's almost entirely it's almost entirely written as some sort of video game websites how-to-play/help guide rather than an encyclopedia article. There's little salvageable here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The characters and story have garnered coverage, and I don't see how it is a game guide or is deserving of a TNT. I think the table may work better than prose, in this case, as well. I'm also not sure how listing the facets of the character and their gameplay (i.e., rarity and weapon or element type) is unencyclopedic either. There could obviously be improvements, but AfD is not cleanup. Add a tag or start something on the talk page. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listing off their "rarity", what elements they use, etc, is all very basic WP:GAMECRUFT content. It shouldn't be written in a way that is helping the reader play the game. That's not what an encyclopedia does. It should look and read much more like something like Characters of the Final Fantasy XIII series. Which is why I say, very little would be kept if we converted it to appropriate encyclopedic content. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing anything at WP:GAMECRUFT that says anything against such stuff, especially when such aspects are tied to the character and gameplay. Nor does the page "help the reader". Why? I Ask (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAMECRUFT point #7. Having a chart listing off rarity, element type, weapon types - all violate that point. Like half the chart violates GAMECRUFT. And the article is almost entirely made of these sorts of charts. This is the sort of stuff that goes on fan wikias and IGN walkthroughs, not Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the element, or their "vision", is central to the character. It's akin to mentioning a comic book character's superpower. Sure, I could see a case for rarity (although, I disagree), but in a game centered around elements, and how a person receives their vision, it's a central part of their characterization. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Your standards for GAMECRUFT are far looser than the community's standards. If this article survives AFD, I'll hold a separate discussion on what info/columns should be kept/deleted/reworked, but I assure you, this sort of stuff is going to have a consensus for trimming. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elli and Why? I Ask:, that is exactly WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE: mostly non-notable characters with their in-game statistics mentioned. That the story of Genshin Impact and the game itself is notable doesn't mean these characters are. There's nothing about character rarity or character statistics in the main article, because Genshin Impact#Gameplay is sufficient to describe gameplay.

These characters are barely notable and they've received very little coverage in the custom WP:VG/RS search engine. Take Albedo for instance. You get release date info, best build and "Albedo’s thigh has set the Genshin Impact fandom on fire". Trivial at best. There's no actual WP:SIGCOV beyond their in-game appearances. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole article by Screen Rant discussing Albedo's backstory [15]. Not every character needs full, in-depth coverage. That would mean none of these lists exist at all. But a good chunk of these characters have gotten significant coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does an article describing the character's in-game backstory help? What can also be used to describe a character's in-game backstory is... the game. Again, no significant coverage. Author of the piece, Rain Kengly, only writes about Genshin Impact, 86 articles on guides, items, weapons, and, yes, characters. Take a gander at List of The Last of Us characters, not "Joel can use these guns, has a health statistic of so much and can craft these weapons when in possesion of these items" but actual encyclopedic in nature with the focus on development (from third-party sources) and reception. There is no such coverage on the characters of Genshin Impact. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's couple sources on Albedo by Kotaku [16][17] and one from Forbes writer Paul Tassi [18] (yes, I know Forbes contributors is different from Forbes, but Tassi is fairly reputable). There are sources, you just don't like them. And this is just one character out of several dozen more. Coverage on a character's backstory may seem unhelpful, but it shows that there is coverage. And your analogy to Joel makes little sense. The Genshin list doesn't list health and the individual weapons used. It lists the weapon types and element which are core parts of the the entire character itself. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Providing some sources for a single character (especially one you even concede doesn't meet our reliability standards - Forbes contributors) is really not the home run argument you seem to think it is. I'm not !voting delete yet, but it's not because I'm particularly convinced by your arguments or thoughts on what acceptable content for this article, it's really more that I believe the sourcing and editor interest necessary to actually fix this mess probably does exist. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I believe that Tassi meets the subject-expert criterion listed under WP:FORBESCON. And it's a game based around characters that fall into different classes. Listing those classes is encyclopedic. It's like removing mentions of DPS, Tank, and Support from an Overwatch list. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to your own stances, but none of that is consistent with the current consensus found at WP:VG, MOS:VG, WP:VG/S, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite what stances oppose me. There are exceptions to every hard rule, and I think Tassi meets being a reliable source. However, if you're talking about not including weapon/element type and things, then please cite what says such things are not allowed. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, @Why? I Ask:, you're an experienced editor and so am I, please don't make assumptions whether or not I like these sources. I did do a WP: BEFORE check and did not just randomly decided to AfD this list. But maybe I'm not being clear. We need significant coverage beyond just gameplay stuff. Like @Sergecross73: pointed out, weapon types, elements and rarities (again, not even mentioned in the article) are WP:GAMECRUFT. So sources if just report on those elements, that's not establishing standalone notability. We need more to go on. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a criterion for lists of fictional works to explicitly require reception and development and whatnot. Sure, for stand-alone articles, those are important. But this is a list because they're is coverage on most characters, but not enough for each character to have their own article (obviously). It meets WP:CSC. If you look up "Genshin Impact"+"Characters" in the WP:VG/RS search bar, you will find articles covering the characters, either individually (e.g., through release announcements) or as a whole. We have these lists because there is significant coverage of characters, but not enough for individuals. And this is how Wikipedia has operated with articles like List of Blood-C characters and List of BlazBlue characters since the project began. Barring some wide discussion that explicitly says such lists need to have each character intimately sourced, these articles are fit for Wikipedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Genshin. It's a gacha game that makes money on having loads and loads of characters. Necessarily most of them will have only passing influence on the plot. The list itself devotes a huge amount of space to game guide material. The sources as it stands is mostly development and reception info about the game itself, which would fit just fine in the main article. The coverage I've seen of the individual characters are WP:ROUTINE announcement articles about a new banner and the like. I'm also (not) amused by the implicit bias of the list, which includes English and Japanese voice actors, but not Chinese VAs of a game developed and published in China. If anything, it would include Chinese (country of origin) and English (language of this encyclopedia's readers) to follow MOSVG guidelines. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Genshin. The notability isn't in question based on a quick WP:BEFORE.[19][20][21] The problem is it's written like a WP:GAMEGUIDE. I believe someone can re-write this into an informative encyclopedia article. But if not then it can be summed up and merged. Archrogue (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge for now - per Axem, WP:GAMECRUFT, and WP:TNT. I believe there could be sufficient sourcing for splitting out an article about the characters - its a popular game that gets a lot of attention and coverage for its character. But I think it would take pretty much an entire restart to get it in a publishable state, because so much of it is inappropriate fancruft type content currently. Merge back the basics to the parent article for now, and only split out if someone someone drafts up something more akin to the various Characters of Final Fantasy articles. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the list has already been established by others, and the other issues voiced are surmountable and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Foe example, the concerns about WP:GAMEGUIDE material can be resolved by deleting the relevant columns (and some columns like the element and weapon are WP:DEFINING characteristics, for example the sources given in this AfD include sentences like and will debut the Dendro Archon Nahida and the four-star sword Cryo character Layla as new playable characters, They are ‘The Wanderer’, a five-star Anemo catalyst user, and Faruzan, a four-star Anemo bow wielder, and Today, several notable Genshin Impact leakers stated that the geo element swordsman Albedo), and the concern about the lack of Chinese VA's being listed can be solved by adding them to the table. I do not see a need to WP:TNT the article, and any merge to the main article would cause the characters to be WP:UNDUE. Jumpytoo Talk 21:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, AFD is cleanup :). I don't think your link to WP:DEFINING is illustrating the point you intend. Weapon, element, and rarity may be important to these characters from an in-universe and gameplay perspective (and they're easy to source from routine coverage from gacha blogs), but they're not important to the story or to the encyclopedia we're building. Of course merging the entire table into Genshin would be "undue" but that's not what I'm suggesting. I don't think there's anything in the (almost entirely unreferenced) table that should be brought over, not even the voice actors. I think a short new section should be written in the main article about characters, and then port the design, reception, and controversy sections over to their respective ones in the main article. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  If reliable sources consistency use the element/weapon to describe a character, then I consider it encyclopedic to mention it as Wikipedia is built to summarize how RS describe topics. Your suggestion to remove information such as the voice actor in your proposed merge is not what the current standard for writing character articles/sections is, for example using the Final Fantasy XII article mentioned by Serge, each character mentions their English & native names, their voice actors, and a plot summary. Such merge would also have significant issues about deciding which characters are "important" enough, and as a live service game will introduce more characters which would very quickly justify a re-split through WP:PAGESIZE and WP:DUE. I could see a case of converting the table into a bulleted list similar to the "Non-playable characters", but that is a content issue which can be done on the talk page. Jumpytoo Talk 22:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Just a clarification - reliable source coverage does not override GAMECRUFT. I could go find 20 reliable sources right now that say that in Super Mario 64 you use the A button to jump and the C buttons to move the camera, and that still wouldn't change the fact that we don't add button controls to Wikipedia because we're not a game guide. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  To be clear, would you support removing the type listing from the List of Pokémon articles? Why? I Ask (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  That's not a good comparison because no reliable source makes the games controls the very first thing they say about Super Mario 64 (it's not DEFINING). But with the Genshin characters the first thing they say is frequently their element/weapon. Regardless, if the consensus is to not have the characters element or whatever, that can be done in 5 minutes by deleting the column. It does not require AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 17:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  ...You're saying the jump button in a platformer isn't defining...? That feels like a bit of a reach, but regardless, that's another discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The FF article also has massively more and better sourcing, particularly on out of universe aspects of the game, characters, and design. You're welcome to incubate a draft of this list that looks more like the FF character article but until such time, I will still support merging. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That would be a great argument for promoting expansion, perhaps by changing it to prose form to help kickstart that. But the problems raised are surmountable, and do not require TNT. I also note Jclemens comment below, remember that someone has to do the actual merge, there's a good chance a merge people will be happy with would look similar to the FF articles. Jumpytoo Talk 17:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Forgive me if I don't have a high opinion of people who make sweeping promises of improvements if only you'd vote keep on their poor sweet widdle article. Experience tells me their interest in doing so ends as soon as the AFD is over (or sooner!). I would like to see a solid draft in my hands before I will be convinced. Until then, the article history in the redirect will preserve any work that's salvageable. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability appears pretty clear, the only question seems to be should these characters be listed in a list, as currently, or as prose, a more encyclopedic approach. The latter is clearly preferable, and the transition from where it is now to where it can/should be is fixable through regular editing so deletion is not appropriate. Merging would have to make the same transform, so while it is a better ATD than redirection, it's not clear that it's any less work than just cleaning up the standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fancruft but justifiable as WP:N is established. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list was created (accepted from draft) shortly after I raised awareness of dozens of individual character articles in Chinese Wikipedia. Please refer to the zhwiki counterpart of this list and you will find adequate sources to justify notability. Milky Defer 13:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep currently full of gamecruft but I don't think it's bad enough to warrant a TNT. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a ton of coverage, although almost all of it is game-guide-spamish. Overall, I think WP:NLIST is met, and while I'd oppose creating pages for individual characters, a list seems fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Genshin Impact's entire success as one of the highest-grossing mobile games of all time rests on players spending money on the game's mechanics to receive characters.^[1] So I think a list of characters for a character-oriented game is not unwarranted. Fancruft can be removed without issue. However, I'm unsure what kind of information can be included as few sources go into much about the characters beyond the fancruft- elements, rarity, weapon, etc etc. At best I can find articles about controversies involving certain characters, such as an article about a negative reaction to a character's Chinese opera ties, an article about a mural with a Genshin Impact character being called "satanic", and complaints that Genshin Impact characters rely on colorism and offensive cultural stereotypes. The best I can think of is a list of names with a brief description of the character, much like the List of Harry Potter characters. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify: I originally objected, as one of the editors who rewrote the article so that it included more citations and the like, to having the article moved to mainspace. But now that the article is in mainspace it is important to remember that deletion is not cleanup. This is a notable topic; each playable character has gotten significant independent coverage in multiple sources that are not wikis (like Fandom) or SNSes (like Reddit). On the other hand, if this page has serious problems that a rewrite is needed, draftification may be the best bet. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've went ahead and cut out some of the gamecruft information. There will need to be more encyclopedic information about the design of each character. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You know, I could sworn I've seen this in AFD before, and yet there's not previous listings here? Maybe I'm thinking of a similarly-named article? Anyway, the "controversy" section along is, I think, enough to meet the GNG and LISTN. Sure, it needs a lot of clean up, but I don't think its bad enough for a TNT. MoonJet (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This went to MfD as a draft. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of? Elli (talk | contribs) 07:51, 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Abbott[edit]

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

This is an odd case. The disambiguation page is at "Abbott" with two "t"s, but lists two subjects named "Abbot" with one "t", one being a clear primary topic of the name by historical importance. Absent any Abbotts (or, perhaps, more Abbots), disambiguation is not required at all. BD2412 T 13:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 13:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with additional Abbot(t}s now added. MB 15:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @MB: I appreciate the additions, but if kept this should be moved to Joel Abbot (disambiguation); a majority of subjects on the page (including the only ones with their own articles) are at that spelling. BD2412 T 06:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @BD2412, no disagreement there. MB 06:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 14 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. ✗plicit 14:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PEI Architects[edit]

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

This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. None of the references discuss the company in detail. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and New York. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the article has now been developed and sourced, though largely to niche industry publications which wouldn't help the company pass WP:NCORP. However, there is some evidence of lengthier coverage about the company in mainstream sources, for example, [in the New York Times] about their Chinese Embassy design and an overview of the company. Though some of the later coverage relies heavily on their family connection to I M Pei, I'm willing to believe this is one of the world's more notable architecture firms. Sionk (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this high-profile architecture firm easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NARCHITECT#3, and arguably WP:ORG as well. Interesting test case, since a spot check of the category suggests that this is now one of the better sourced articles about a contemporary New York-based architecture firm on Wikipedia. Yes, PEI Architects (formerly Pei Partnership Architects) has benefitted reputationally from its association with the founders' famous father, I. M. Pei. While a degree of skepticism is wise given that notability is not inherited on WP, in this particular case there is SUSTAINED SIGCOV that makes it clear that his sons have made their own mark within the industry, as acknowledged by the World Policy Journal in 2010, and that the collective body of work PEI Architects has created is significant, leaving a lasting historical legacy internationally. Mainstream media coverage counting toward notability of the architects include: New York Times articles on the Chinese embassy (2008) and "The Delicate Matter of Passing the Torch" (1999); coverage of the U.S. National Slavery Museum's promise (New York Times 2004) and failure (Washington Post 2014); and the 2017 feature article in the South China Morning Post which discusses Sandi Pei and PPA’s involvement with the Bank of China Heritage Building in Hong Kong, as well as his family legacy. For additional ORGDEPTH, I would argue that a few of the trade publications should also count using extreme care: the first half of the 2008 feature article in Stone World (4 pages); the 2003 "Global Thinking" article in Contract; the 2009 Contract article on PPA's work on the Guanajuato State Library; and the 2002 article in Stone World on the Bank of China Head Office project in Beijing, which I. M. Pei himself said was the project when “PPA came of age” in his view. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cielquiparle's expansion of the article. While I agree that the company has benefited from coverage about I. M. Pei himself, there are now multiple reliable secondary sources describing the firm and its principals in detail, which I believe satisfy WP:NCORP. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Khoga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Orphan page which fails notability Tiny Particle (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow, what a mess of an article. I would lean delete on the basis of TNT anyway, but that said, this person does seem to exist and could plausibly be notable in their areas of work as I did find this professional-looking documentary. Unfortunately, I can find zero sources in English. Maybe someone who speaks Arabic or Russian would be of more help. Blue Edits (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this supposed to be a discussion about a family name or one person? I can't understand what this article is about. Without a clear subject, you can't start to look for GNG. Delete instead. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G1. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:37, 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. ✗plicit 13:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical stability[edit]

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

The original version of this is more or less gibberish; if anything, it has gotten worse. There seems to be the common sense notion in the social sciences that one hopes that repetition of studies produces consistent results, but as it is, this needs treatment with WP:TNT. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This common sense notion is not developed either, but used as a vehicle to promote the initial authors' Theory of hyper-random phenomena, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of hyper-random phenomena (that article had similar issues and was deleted 2017.) 129.16.31.116 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unusually well structured pile of WP:SYNTH constructed for the purpose of promoting WP:OR. PianoDan (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article Statistical stability was essentially created in one shot, with references and all, by a single author, I.I.Gorban, the same author of Theory of hyper-random phenomena which has now been deleted. All the edits following the initial one were just minor tweaks. Seems like a case of self-promotion, or at least promotion of a field where he is the main contributor. So also WP:COI. PatrickR2 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination's comment one hopes that repetition of studies produces consistent results is more clearly written than the article. The text tries to cram in just about everybody whose name is associated with the fundamentals of probability theory, including at least one who just included a coin-tossing example in a textbook (Feynman). I concur with the above !voters that we have a conflict-of-interest synthesis case here. XOR'easter (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub. The nominator refers to an essay as a deletion rationale: WP:TNT, which means blow it up and start over, not delete it. I agree it should be stubbed. Our actual policies are to WP:PRESERVE and find WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no stub that can be saved here. I'm happier when an article can be salvaged, but this time, the only relevant section of WP:PRESERVE is WP:DON'T PRESERVE. XOR'easter (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 13:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oit Ihuk, Arizona[edit]

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

This is an archaeological site of a former village, but there is no significant coverage to establish GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete False content in article, needs more substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 13:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added source from the U.S. Department of the Interior that lists it as a termporary, or seasonal, village, so per WP:GEOLAND. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - populated places do not need to continue to be populated. And as per RecycledPixels. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 31 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!} 20:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT and MERGE into San Xavier Indian Reservation, and not DELETE only because of RecycledPixles. I spent 15 minutes scouring google for any information other than the most basic info that is already provided, and could find nothing but other wikis with copies of WP. It seems to be as notable as a dirt mound that once had a teepee on top. Maybe the author can find some non-internet sources? Cheers! It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 13:37, 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 Oomph!#Monster and Truth or Dare (2008–2010). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monster (Oomph! album)[edit]

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

Nothing on page to clear notability and all I could find was this charting in a few countries. That alone certainly doesn't convince me. QuietHere (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Germany. QuietHere (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - I'm not a big defender of album articles in general, but that said: on the subject of charts it's not a matter of opinion; WP:NALBUM states: "a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:... 2. The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart." So, I think the issue here is that while a chart appearance is implied obliquely in the article, this needs to be documented better. There's also the Alien vs. Predator angle which touches on "5. The recording was performed in a medium that is notable..." In my mind the decision rests on whether this stub, when expanded, will more strongly reflect some of these notability criteria. -- t_kiehne (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, but I would be much more amenable to this if there was any SIGCOV available, and as far as I saw there isn't. I don't feel comfortable leaving an article around where three of the four sources are from the band's own website and the fourth only shows one single charting (not even the album itself; WP:NOTINHERITED). It's just not a good look, y'know? QuietHere (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Alien vs. Predator bit is also about a single and thusly also WP:NOTINHERITED, silly me for not realising that before. That still just leaves us with the charting and even if it is in three different countries I still don't think that alone in enough for a keep. QuietHere (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good points, and, again, I'm not a big fan of album articles except in certain cases. If the evidence doesn't bear out for a separate article, I'd at least want to be sure the prose of this article is reflected in the main artist article, so merge would be my vote. -- t_kiehne (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, I would be fine with that outcome as well. QuietHere (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkiehne actually, most of what's on the album page is already on either Oomph! or Oomph! discography so there's not much point in a merge vote. The one thing I can see that was missing was the cover art contest but I just added that. I don't think there's anything else that needs saving. QuietHere (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I forgot to write it above but I would definitely support a redirect to Oomph!#Monster_and_Truth_or_Dare_(2008–2010). QuietHere (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, considering a Delete, Keep, Merge or Redirect here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly clear, as stated above, my vote is to redirect to Oomph!#Monster_and_Truth_or_Dare_(2008–2010). Tkiehne's appears to be either keep or merge (though I disagree more with the merge since the information is already there, against as I stated above). QuietHere (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I've reviewed the content and agree that we can redirect. -- t_kiehne (talk) 20:33, 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 no consensus. Anyone is free to either renominate the article for deletion or boldly turn it into a redirect, since its album, which was also nominated for deletion, was closed as "redirect" days ago. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth (Oomph! song)[edit]

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

Only source is the band's own website, ELs are their website and Myspace page. Couldn't find any actual coverage. The album's and band's pages don't look too much better so it's weird to recommend a redirect when it might end up leading to another deleted page in the near future, but I suppose the former will do for the time being. QuietHere (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Germany. QuietHere (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is this apparent charting in their native Germany. Still not enough to clear notability but it's worth noting I suppose. QuietHere (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've made an AfD for the album. If that closes as anything but keep then my vote is to redirect to the band's page. QuietHere (talk) 10:50, 25 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!} 20:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fier Fair Football Tournament[edit]

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

According to RSSSF, this tournament is a "journalistic hoax". See links: https://www.rsssf.org/tablesa/alba1911.html http://gottfriedfuchs.blogspot.com/2014/01/albania-1911.html

See discussion on talk page and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_157#1911_Fier_Fair_Football_Tournament_(Albania) Nonleagueapps (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Albania. Nonleagueapps (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 16:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hoax, what's interesting as it directly cites wikipedia back on itself. However, this clearly needs to be added to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - long-standing hoax article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 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 13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Miguel (cigar brand)[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:09, 25 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!} 20:44, 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!} 09:39, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Diplomat[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Florida. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:07, 25 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!} 20:44, 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!} 09:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources means no way of proving notability. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:26, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habana Leon[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Florida. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:05, 25 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!} 20:44, 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!} 09:38, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nacionales W[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Florida. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:02, 25 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!} 20:44, 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!} 09:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to add more - the nominatro expalined it quite well. --多少战场龙 (talk) 13:27, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signature 1932[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Florida. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:59, 25 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!} 20:43, 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!} 09:38, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corojo Label[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Nicaragua. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:56, 25 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!} 20:42, 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!} 09:38, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EO Premium 601 Serie[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Nicaragua. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:55, 25 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!} 08:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 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 Pepin Garcia#Client brands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fumadores[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:53, 25 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!} 08:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pepin Garcia#Client brands, a search brought up nothing but a bunch of unreliable and primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:05, 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. ✗plicit 13:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tatuaje Havana VI[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Nicaragua. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:50, 25 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!} 08:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troya (cigar)[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Cuba, and Dominican Republic. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:48, 25 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!} 08:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Tabac Alpha Series[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Nicaragua. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:46, 25 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!} 08:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Padilla Habano[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Nicaragua. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:44, 25 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!} 08:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Padilla Maduro[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Dominican Republic. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:43, 25 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!} 07:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Padilla Hybrid[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Dominican Republic. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:42, 25 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!} 07:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no evidence of notability. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:34, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reyes Family (cigar)[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Honduras. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:40, 25 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!} 07:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no evidence of notability. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 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 delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. I'm happy to draftify if someone wants to actively work on it. Star Mississippi 03:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bryett[edit]

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

Football coach who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. Trivial media coverage. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a fresh look at the page following an update. I believe there is evidence that Tim Bryett is notable Tipkorir (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not voting on this because I'm unsure of the prominence of the Kenyan Premier League, but the sources used are not 'trivial' contrary to the nominating statement. Trivial sources, per policy, mentions the information at issue in an off the cuff or minor way. The appointment as coach, conversely, is the main thrust and sole topic of the sources used in the article, e.g. https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/sports/2014/04/07/briton-bryett-appointed-city-stars-coach/ --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note your comments. The Kenyan Premier League is the top most league in country. The page has since been reworked and a lot more references added. Help the page survive a deletion Tipkorir (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. The 'appointed' / 'sacked' coverage is not enough, it's routine. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page re-worked and there are a lot more references now beyond what you pointed out (appointed/sacked). Reconsider your opinion to have it deleted Tipkorir (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe, now with an updated page, that Tim Bryett is very notable Tipkorir (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly re-check. The page has since been expanded and more credible references added Tipkorir (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draftify - Article fails WP:GNG. Plenty of trivial/routine coverage, including brief interviews and hiring/firing announcements. ~~I don't see any in-depth coverage on his career (just brief notes about his license and roles).~~ The Bucks Free Press article is enough to satisfy SPORTBASIC, but let's give some time to see if this article can meet the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. I do believe he is notable as he received quite some coverage while in the premier league. I just probably didn't balance the references beyond hiring/firing. I have attended to it now and improved on what was there before. Kindly nominate the page to stay afloat Tipkorir (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - I have since reworked the page that with a lot more refences from reliable sources that proves he received wide coverage Tipkorir (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Per Tipkorir. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Michezo Afrika doesn't seem to be RS--no editorial policy, looks like you can just submit your own stories, and the article is riddled with typos. The Bucks Free Press is a "local boy makes it big" piece and is largely an interview, with only seven sentences on him from the interviewer. The rest of the sources are basically routine refactored press releases and do not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in North Dakota[edit]

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

Lacks any significant coverage specifically about the topic. Out of the reliable sources there are two passing mentions and one statistic. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and North Dakota. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources exist: a doubling of missionaries in the Dakotas, the foundation of a temple at Bismarck, a conference in Bismarck, and a history of Mormons in the Dakotas. The last one is considered a primary source as an official publication of the LDS Church. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither Church News nor the faith section of Deseret News are neutral or independent and therefore do not count towards notability. See WP:LDS/RS. And the Grand Forks Herald source is not specifically about North Dakota, it's about both of the Dakotas. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  According to WP:LDS/RS, the Deseret News is independent and generally reliable. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, the wikiproject page was either out of date or falsified. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Would you suggest Merging into page called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Dakotas"? - Similar to Pages like the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Samoan Islands or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ireland. While the Grand Forks Herald source is not specifically about North Dakota, it is specific to the region, and would not apply to the church as a whole. Thanks.-- Dmm1169 (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Ficaia: The faith section of Deseret News is not independent. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Dmm1169: That's a possibility, but I wouldn't suggest it based on a single source that isn't extremely in-depth in the first place. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmm1169: I think that's a reasonable compromise, if no one comes up with better sources for North Dakota specifically 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is listed and labeled as a stub on the page since its creation in hopes for it to be expanded in future use. Content that is present does relate to the topic. I would like to see more third party content, but for now, it's a stub. I did see an issue in the History Section where it directly referred to external links which I edited in effort to correct. -- Dmm1169 (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails WP:GNG. We lack the quantity of significant coverage in independent WP:RS that we are required to have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've found some additional independent sources that go beyond a passing mention regarding the Church in North Dakota - [22], [23], [24]. I think there are a few others out there that have turned up as citations is google searches, but are not readily available (if at all) online so it's not possible to see how they might help. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also now per WP:HEY as another editor and myself have identified 5 additional independent reliable sources and used them to expand the article, particularly the history section. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While we apparently do have articles about the LDS Church in each of the 50 states, I don't think we need to. In some states, the LDS Church is very prominent; a few other states are important to Mormon history or theology; but some other states don't have sufficient notability vis-a-vis the church to warrant a separate article. I believe North Dakota is one of the latter. Note that one of the two sentences in the "History" section says, "In 2020, the LDS Church temporarily canceled services and other public gatherings in response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic which resumed online and/or in person, depending on the congregation." The same applies to pretty much every religious denomination in every state of the United States, not just the LDS Church in North Dakota, and it's cited to a Wall Street Journal article titled "Mormon Church Cancels Services World-Wide Amid Coronavirus Crisis" (emphasis added). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
North Dakota has more members per capita than any other state east of the Rocky Mountains. While it's not directly on the Mormon Trail, a significant amount of church history has occurred within the state. I haven't put in much on this page as I would like to put in the time to research and verify sources prior to implementation into this page. I also prefer if others contribute with the page. I was not the author of the phrase ""In 2020, the LDS Church temporarily canceled services and other public gatherings in response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic which resumed online and/or in person, depending on the congregation." but left it as in this case, it clarifies why the number of missionaries doubled (missionaries sent to foreign missions being pulled back to the US to serve within the US). Otherwise, I would have deleted it like I did with most other LDS in state/country pages. Other users have contributed to this page and I would like to see more.

This page is clearly a stub, but this status is not intended to be permanent because of it's history and role in the church and region. Dmm1169 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the COVID shutdown statement and reference are too broad. Both myself and another editor have expanded the history section based on several independent sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar to discussions occurred with at least Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Missouri (2009) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Maine (2021), there was a previous deletion discussion that resulted in "no consensus" and "keep", respectively. This page is very similar in format as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Maine, except this page has more external sourced material than when Maine was nominated for deletion. This is a stub, there's is substantial history and other. However, I am open to merging and creating "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Dakotas", although the Dakotas are two different states, and it would be inconsistent with the other LDS in State pages. There's more than 10,000 members and significant local church history. So even though it's a stub class article now, it has plenty of room to grow and improve according to Wikipedia policy and standards.

Prior to nomination of this page for deletion, FormalDude blanked this and dozens of other pages, including above mentioned pages which had a consensus of Keep in which FyzixFighter and others took time to revert these pages back. --Dmm1169 (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Bulgaria (2022) is another article nominated for deletion in the past, but this concerned a mass nomination of 100+ pages. Due to similarities in both request and discussion in these previous nominations, comments and conclusions made in these discussions and should be considered. Dmm1169 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one article that I blanked that had a previous consensus of keep, and I admitted my mistake. Not sure why you think that's appropriate to bring up here. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recent updates to the article have provided sufficient independent sourcing to justify its notability. Dare I say, WP:HEY look at it now? Rollidan (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's still not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to pass GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I'm seeing this as No consensus. Maybe another week will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably would have chimed in with the same !vote regardless of recent edits, but the article has been expanded to the point where I don't think it's in question anymore. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per others, though I"m not really able to find many independent sources. Note: I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however this has no influence on my !vote since I am viewing it from the perspective of a non-member. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOME and Metropolitan90; we almost always delete individual or local missions. If this was large enough to constitute a diocese in a Christian church, I'd accept it, for example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Florida, but this is a small region with 26 churches, chapels and missions. There's more than that in NYC. Bearian (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to NYC seems a bit misleading. We do have articles on small diocese and other Christian church groupings of comparable size, such as Roman Catholic Diocese of Juneau (~10k members and 10 parishes), Roman Catholic Apostolic Vicariate of Jolo (~30k members, 5 parishes), Roman Catholic Territorial Prelature of Batanes (~15k members, 6 parishes), Roman Catholic Territorial Prelature of Loreto, etc. Since Metropolitan90's comments, the history section has been significantly expanded with over 5 independent, reliable, and in-depth sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in the history section talk about the LDS Church in North Dakota specifically, and therefore none of them can be counted towards GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. this source talks about the LDS Church in North Dakota specifically, same with this one and this as well. All of them can be counted towards GNG, as they all are news articles about the growth of the church in the state. Rollidan (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider improvements to the article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Oleszczuk[edit]

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

She was only known by being shown as one of the members of the consultative council (which notability seems to be ambiguous). During protests against tightening abortion law in Poland, she gave only some interviews to some polish broadcasting and media services. As of my convience it's not suffiecient reason to be acknowledged as a notable person. In an interview given for "Radio Zet " she confessed she had been appointed to the council after her boyfriend resigned from being in the council and gave his seat to her. Link to the talk with Oleszczuk^[2] The Wolak (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge notability is not temporary and the sources cited in the article indicate that she received significant coverage for her activities. If not kept, should be merged with another article rather than deleting. (t · c) buidhe 08:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. Coverage as primary topic in mainstream news media 1 Dec 2020 Wirtualna Polska; member of activist coordination council created during Poland's biggest protests since the 1989 fall of the communist government, 1 Nov 2020 Gazeta Wyborcza. The fact that Oleszczuk received coverage by a full article in the right-wing Do Rzeczy (see the discussion at Talk:Do Rzeczy), which should be expected to be opposed to her and lack the motivation to amplify her notability, is evidence of notability. The fact that the Wikipedia entry itself had to be protected at 13:53, 6 November 2020 and again a month later at 13:20, 5 December 2020 is circumstantial evidence that Oleszczuk is notable enough that people felt they had to disrupt or vandalise her Wikipedia entry. Boud (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Boud's comments. Meets GNG and has had a sustained presence in media. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important Polish feminist activist. There are many sources about her on the Internet. Bruno Latour (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I've doubts if your opinions are proven by some explanations. The fact that somebody gave some interviews to Television does not judge somebody's notability. We don't have criteria if smb appeared on some broadcast or television then becomes autoencyclopedical The Wolak (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The profile in Forbes (Poland) and her nomination for their 2022 "25 Under 25" list goes beyond "gave some interviews to television" in meeting GNG. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Outside the Forbes article (paywalled and possibly unreliable, see WP:FORBES), I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV. Mentions in passing; the Wirtualna Polska article is about something she proposed, not about her. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Forbes article is the sort of various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles mentioned at WP:FORBES, not one of the commentary pieces discussed at WP:FORBESCON. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence of WP:SIGCOV is this article in the Wysokie Obcasy (archive) section of Gazeta Wyborcza, one of Poland's two newspapers of record; the article is fully devoted to Oleszczuk; she is the main topic of the source material, which is more than what is needed. Boud (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:INTERVIEW, which is not very good; it's the subject talking about herself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews may be considered primary or non-independent when it comes to the statements being made. However, for notability if the media outlet and journalist conducting the interview are independent of the subject, then it is good. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. She looks like she's famous in Poland and Polish newspapers talk about her enough. The article is very detailed and Wikipedia is a place for detailed biographies about living people. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Tyler, Joshua Edward (4 November 2021). "Genshin Impact Beats Fortnite, GTA 5 Revenue In Best First Year Ever". ScreenRant. Retrieved 10 November 2022.
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1bKnGetHoc

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 11:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Sen (writer)[edit]

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

~~no in-depth coverage. Suman lacks references from reliable resources. I can't find YouTube as reliable. And for this is not meeting WP:GNG. SpeakNeak (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 11:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. SpeakNeak (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep forget about YouTube, the article have some reliable sources from some front row media coverage like The Times of India, The Hindu, News 18, Financial Express, Yahoo, The Tribune, Indian Express, Indiatimes etc. And also have some regional media coverage like Khabor Online, Abekshan etc. and also some international media coverage. I can include more citation if needed. GreyWorm6 (talk) 08:06, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AVN Award for Best Actor[edit]

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

All of this information is present on the range of articles dedicated to the specific AVN award ceremonies. I'm not sure why these awards need their own individual articles, when the same information is more concisely handled already on wikipedia.

I am nominating the following articles

AVN Award for Best Actor AVN Award for Best Actress AVN Award for Best Supporting Actor AVN Award for Best Supporting Actress AVN Award for Male Performer of the Year AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year AVN Award for Male Foreign Performer of the Year AVN Award for Female Foreign Performer of the Year AVN Award for Transgender Performer of the Year

Heythere95 (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — Heythere95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Sexuality and gender. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, these are cross-transactional to the individual award ceremonies, and in that sense are no different from the Academy Award for Best Actor or Tony Award for Best Actor in a Musical lists. They present information in a manner unique to the presentation of individual events. BD2412 T 03:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the pages are holistically informative about the popular segments of one of the longest running major award show that provides a peek in to the world of adult entertainment. Rim sim (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. For awards programs which present awards across multiple categories, such as the Oscars or the Grammies or this, the most user-friendly way of presenting the information is to have an article about each year's ceremony which lists all the winners and nominees in that specific year across all categories that were presented that year, and an article about each category which lists all the winners and nominees in that specific category across all years in which it was presented. These aren't in conflict with each other, because they serve two different purposes — by-year and by-category lists are complementary to each other, not redundant with each other, because they cross-reference different subsets of information on different organizing criteria. The grounds for deleting these would be "the AVN Awards aren't notable enough for us to have any articles about them at all", not "by-category articles aren't necessary if by-year articles also exist", but the nominator isn't claiming the former. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - These nominations stink of WP:DONTLIKE they are sourced and well sourced, simply being publications which are disliked does not diminish the reliability or verifiability of these publications. Porn awards exist and they are notable, individual awards exist and they are notable. These collection of the winners of specific awards is standard, and verifiable. Claiming duplication of information is absurd, because by that metric every single award page for every single individual actor would need removing. That would be absurd. This is the most user friendly way of presenting these awards and it is bonkers to decrease the ease of accessibility of information. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all without prejudice towards a new filing by an actual Wikipedia user. I do not put any weight or credibility on someone who creates an account, files an AfD within one minute, then completes a multi-part tagging process of a dozen articles in 20 minutes. Zaathras (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete this page? You’re worried about head shots and words? I hate to break the news, but the kids aren’t watching “Leave it to Beaver” anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf Laphammer (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all WP:PRESERVE Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Plays[edit]

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

Non-notable person, does not pass WP:BIO or WP:BLP. Provided sources are all self-published, which are by definition unreliable. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page was repeated blanked by a user who disagreed with the nomination. Please watch for new accounts who might be sock/meatpuppet accounts or others WP:CANVASSed to this discussion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:20, 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Pork Chop for Larry[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, fails to satisfy NFILM and even GNG, nothing found in a BEFORE. Only web results appear to be comprehensive film databases, Wikipedia mirrors and other unreliable sources, such as wikis and blogs—none of which satisfy notability guidelines. The creator and lead actress both have Wikipedia entries but notability is not inherited. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 04:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another 'before they were stars shoot we can jump onto this!' thing (here, for Amy Ryan), which is otherwise anonymous. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to show where this short film is notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that this was a hoax. There's zero coverage out there for this and the only things that do mention it (albeit in passing) were published after the article was created. I know that short films tend to lack coverage as a whole and pre-2010s coverage can be spotty, but this is pretty much nonexistent. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:44, 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. ✗plicit 04:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nghi Tran[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are hits in the paid-access Helsingin Sanomat archive, but a lot of them are just results or other brief mentions. Two of the longer stories I noticed during a brief perusal of the archives are [25], (4.5k characters about Tran and one other sprinter on a training camp) and [26] (bio at 3.3k characters including the companion piece [27] ). Given the active years, I'd suspect there is offline coverage that is not available through the digital archives, but naturally that doesn't count for this discussion. I'll try to take a more detailed look in a day or two. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I couldn't locate anything further, meaning the Helsingin Sanomat pieces linked above are the best I could find and they don't really feel like enough. Given the amount of mentions and short snippets I see in various newspaper archives I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be something about him in some sports book or perhaps a more specialized magazine, but again hypothetical sources don't count here. Ljleppan (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick search in a Swedish-language archive (inclueding Hufvudstadsbladet, but not necessarily with good coverage from his active years) didn't dig up anything really useful – mainly results, potentially with a few sentences about his participation in a particular competition. /Julle (talk) 10:58, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 03:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandan Greczkowski[edit]

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

Fails notabilty. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources attesting to his national championship wins, continental championships medals and other international tournament wins easily found on Wikipedia in other languages Topcardi (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the general notability guideline with multiple pieces of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see the following: Palmer senior wrestles with Olympic dream: Greczkowski trying to make judo team from the Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph; Brandon Greczkowski: Judo from the Hartford Courant; Throwing Judo's Elite For A Loop (p2) from the Hartford Courant; and Neighbors Share Gift For Judo (p2) from the Hartford Courant. Also, although not necessarily SIGCOV, he appears to be mentioned in the following sources as well: Red, White, Blue & Gold: The U.S. Olympic Team at the Games of the XXVII Olympiad (p. 101–103); and The All-State Olympic Team from The New York Times. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some accomplishments and references to the article. He was a three time U.S. champion and six time medalist at the U.S. championships. He won two medals at the Pan-American championships. He won three matches at the Olympics, losing only to two of the medalists (including a three time Olympic champion), and finished 7th. I'll admit there isn't a lot of internet coverage for a competitor whose biggest success was in the 1990s in a low interest (in the U.S.) sport like judo. However, I believe his level of success merits inclusion in WP. Papaursa (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passed our notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2018 European Athletics U18 Championships. which has mild consensus as target. Picking a different one can happen editorially if others think a different one is better. Star Mississippi 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Bouju[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLY and WP:NTRACK. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as National champion.--Arorae (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, but in any case meets NTRACK as having come inside the top 8 at the European Athletics Championships, so a redirect to Netherlands at the 2022 European Athletics Championships would also be possible. Ingratis (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can't find confirmation that he took part in the Olympics. Ingratis (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (changing !vote - my attention wandered: Alvaldi is right about NSPORTS, obvs) Redirect to Netherlands at the 2022 European Athletics Championships - WP:ATD Ingratis (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Per WP:NSPORTS, which WP:NOLY and WP:NTRACK are part of, inclusion for athletes articles is coverage based, not merit based, and all articles must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Alvaldi (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - there doesn't seem to be anything really significant and I can't see evidence that there's really anything to redirect to other than age-group sprinting. It's entirely possible that there might be a case for re-creating this in the next two or three years I guess, but I don't see that just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ingratis, would you support a redirect to 2018 European Athletics U18 Championships where he won his event? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks - I'd be happy with that. Ingratis (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R613 road (South Africa)[edit]

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

The route is inexistent; All relevant geographical sources, including the "official document" which is used as a "citation" in the article, do not list this "numbered route"; It also can't be found on any GPS map. GeographicAccountant (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Africa. Skynxnex (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this route is nonexistent, it should be speedy deleted per WP:G3 as a hoax. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ For the initial reason stated above; this road designation clearly does not exist in South Africa. GeographicAccountant (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Regional routes are clearly notable, however Google Maps comes up with nothing so this one probably doesn't exist. --Rs chen 7754 00:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking while more investigation is done. --Rs chen 7754 23:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep/possible redirect to M13 (Durban) The fact that routes R612 and R614 exist makes me wary about the claim that R613 doesn’t, and deletion. Google Books searching for "R613 route durban" does return a snippet from "Towards a Plan for Kwazulu: The written report - Page 54 (1978)". Another source mentions it as well, but I'm not sure where it comes from[28] it could be WP:CIRCULAR. Maybe a bit more digging is in order? Also, it may be an alias for the R103. UPDATE: Open Street Map[29] marks it as an alias for the M13, which is indeed the R103 in Durban, if I'm not mistaken. The OSM edit states "M13 in Durban used to have the ref "R613" until the mid 1990s"[30]. I know OSM is user generated, but it's a trail that should be followed before we delete. UPDATE 2: Here's a place that refers to the R613 in the right general area, in directions[31]. And another [32] Here's a bus route description from 2020 that mentions the R613 from the Provincial Gazette [33] and another ref[34]. 2018 source from Eskom that mentions the road[35] I think we can confidently say it does exist....the question is whether it's another name for the M13, or an extension of that route, or some other route. Maybe it was renamed as part of the M13 when the Durban metro council was created in the mid-90s? (speculation). UPDATE3 Another ref from 1995[36] Park3r (talk)
Comment So, Park3r, you are saying that the "R613" was once the designation of the "old main road" from Durban towards Pietermaritzburg? That explains the writing in the article, as there is certainly no other road at all that connects "Durban" with "Camperdown" apart from the R103 and the N3. Certainly, typing "R613, Durban" on OpenStreetMap brings the M13 Highway as a result; Some of these citations you have mentioned also show that the "R613" represents the M13 Highway; But we need to remember that the M13 ends in "Outer West Durban" (Assagay) & from there, the "R103" (&/or N3) continues the route to "Camperdown". So, we can't say that the R613 represents "only the M13" if indeed that route reaches all the way to Camperdown (safe to say M13 AND R103). Even the GPS states that the street name "Old Main Road" is used on the "R103" (not exactly the M13). That "Inanda Dam Resort" citation certainly proves that the "R613" designation is used on the "R103" route. So, these few citations have proven collectively that the "R613" designation is known and that it is used on "two current routes" (BOTH the M13 Highway and the R103 Road). It is used for the entire freeway section of the M13 (King Cetshwayo Highway), as well as for the R103 (Old Main Road) from Gillitts/Hillcrest north-westwards past Camperdown. Now, since we have confirmed that the "R613" is used in some Sources, we need to decide which article favours being "redirected to" between the M13 Highway and the R103 Road articles. GeographicAccountant (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per my previous comment, I withdraw the idea of "deleting the article" & I suggest we now "Redirect" to one of these two articles (M13 and R103). I do not know yet which article to recommend "redirecting to" between the two. GeographicAccountant (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we ascertain from a WP:RS that the route is a combination of sections of the R103 and the M13, then the article can be kept intact, and mention this fact. Park3r (talk) 12:50, 27 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!} 19:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I am struggling to find any proper source to preserve this article & what is written in it. I am still prone to recommending a redirect to one of the two articles. Has anybody found a proper source? GeographicAccountant (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets notability via reliable source (which it clearly does via government gazettes and the like) then this should be closed as a keep, and the a potential redirect can be dealt with as an editorial decision. Park3r (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-Israeli Dissent Leipzig[edit]

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

This page describes a non-profit organization, so sources should satisfy WP:SIRS to prove notability. The current four sources fail. As interviews with the founder, the Jewish Currents and +972 sources fail requirements #1 and #4 that they be independent and secondary. I am unfamiliar with jetzt.de and cannot judge whether it is RS. However, that does not matter for this deletion discussion because the Google Translate translation does not seem to mention this organization. It only discusses the founder, who perhaps could be the subject of an article himself if sufficient RS coverage exists. Finally, the Jüdische Stimme source seems to be a petition or statement, rather than secondary coverage.

External links are primary, interviews, and an event notice, and so do not satisfy SIRS. Beyond SIRS, these sources seem to fail the more general N/BASIC/GNG.

A search for RS per BEFORE failed. The suggested searches turn up largely articles written by Sappir, not RS coverage of this article subject. I searched for both "Jewish-Israeli Dissent Leipzig" and the founder's name. Similarly, searching the Wikipedia Library turned up only two articles, neither of which had to do with the article subject. Checking "what links here" identified no new sources. Freelance-frank (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Palestine, Germany, Judaism, and Organizations. 02:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete - agree with the nominator's comments. Interviews are not good indicators of notability. The article in Jetzt.de seems reasonable if reliable, but does not seem to be really in-depth coverage of the organization. My own searches turned up nothing else meaningful not mentioned above, but it's possible I missed some German-language sources. There may be a reasonable case to be made for Sappir being personally notable, but notability is not inherited and the organization does not appear to be. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small insignificant organisation without in depth coverage. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm going to close this discussion as "No consensus" since there have been no new participants after the last relisting. There is a clear difference of opinion on the adequacy of the sources so I don't see a consensus emerging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tixati[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable per WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG reviews are few and far between and they alone are not sufficient for notability, no sources discussing significance of the product. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree Tixati is not the most well-known Bittorrent client, but it is an actively maintained piece of software. The last release was from October 14, 2022. I'd personally vote not to delete the page.

However, if the Tixati page is deleted, it would only be fair to also start the deletion process for the other smaller BitTorrent clients listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients J0bb13 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well known does not mean notable, since you are a newer editor, please take some time to understand the notability guidelines. As for the deletion of the articles on other clients, that also depends on the notability of those clients, so that would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed J0bb13 (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: I know it's futile since the page is likely going to be deleted (as it was before), but I reverted the last edit by Mrizwan.s as it seems to be spam, it linked to some crackquick website. J0bb13 (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the numerous reliable reviews cited in the article (some of which should probably be replaced with Wayback Machine links as the review content seems to have disappeared, but that has zero bearing on notability). Contrary to the assertion by nominator User:Champion, multiple reviews from reliable sources are precisely what demonstrate significance per WP:GNG. (Also note: WP:NSOFT is an essay, not policy.) Modernponderer (talk) 15:53, 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!} 19:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I only see listings except for [37]. The other sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV and cannot contribute towards GNG. Besides, GHacks seems like an okay-ish source but not a good one for WP:GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:0xDeadbeef: "Listings" which include several paragraphs of content specifically about this software, including the reviewer's opinion of its features, absolutely contribute to GNG. But TechRadar also has a standalone review: https://www.techradar.com/reviews/tixati

Together with the full-fledged review from gHacks (which is notable enough to have an article here!) that's the "multiple reliable sources" required by GNG already. Modernponderer (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I have to doubt the reliability of that TechRader review here. They seem to have no idea what security means. "there’s no particular need to worry about the security of Tixati, at least not going by VirusTotal, which registered zero threats after scanning the installer file (at the time of writing)." Their page about how they review stuff also do not suggest that they have such reviews peer reviewed before publication.[38] All others are borderline reliable. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world...? What does your personal opinion of the review have to do with its notability!? And "peer review"... what!? This isn't a scientific publication! Literally none of what you just wrote has any bearing on notability on Wikipedia.

I strongly suggest that you have a look at other software AfDs, because while I'm still trying to WP:AGF here... it's getting difficult. Modernponderer (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying it isn't reliable.. to me. I have looked at other software AfDs and the notability of this article as established by the sources shared does not easily pass the WP:GNG. Perhaps I should have used better wording for my comments on TechRadar. It should be more like "editorial oversight" than "peer review". Sorry.

And then obviously whether a subject is notable should be determined by consensus, and therefore the views of different edits will have bearing on notability. The content of that review makes me doubt its reliability and their level of editorial oversight. That's it. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you're applying a much higher standard than WP:RS, just to this specific article. If we start questioning sources like TechRadar based on minor details, we may without exaggeration have to delete half of Wikipedia. (And if a topic doesn't "easily" pass the GNG, but still passes, it should be kept and not deleted by definition.) Modernponderer (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While that I disagree with Modernponderer on their points raised above, having significant coverage in multiple reviews seems good for WP:GNG even though some of them are not 100% reliable. Although it can be hard to assert notability within the article, I think it is okay. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 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 merge to List of slave ships. Merge as ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lune (1794 ship)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, with a history which is scraped together from disparate sources and seems to be rather dubious: sailing from Liverpool on 25 March 1798, and arriving in Kingston in May 1799 after buying slaves in Gabon? What, they stayed a year in Africa waiting for slaves? In any case, whether one believes this or not, there is no evidence of notability for this ship. Fram (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and England. Fram (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The primary source for the voyages is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, which is the result of several decades of collaboration between university researchers and universities. The remark that the data is "dubious" reflects a lack of familiarity with the world of 1799 or so: sailing takes time. Think about two months to get to West Africa from Liverpool. Months on the coast at both Gabon and Bonny to acquire slaves, with purchases depending on local availability and negotiation time with local kings, and the need to replace crew. (The high mortality among ships' crews reflected not only the duration of the voyage, but months on the coast of Africa.) Sailing from Africa with stops to replenish water and supplies at Sao Tome and St Kitts. The average time for the Middle Passage between Africa and the West Indies in 1800 (per the database), was 56 days, with a standard deviation of 20 days, though with a heavy right tail skew.) (The stop at St Kitts probably was also to gain current information about prices in different West Indies markets.) The voyage from St Kitts to Jamaica might be week or so. The data on the duration of the voyage comes from port records and reports in Lloyd's List; it is generally not an estimate. This lack of understanding is precisely why articles such as this are useful: they show what was usual, not what was exceptional, especially when notability depends on the exceptional (disasters, wrecks, massacres, etc.) not representativeness. Of course the history is assembled from disparate sources. The sources not only provide verifibility, listing of sources is also forward looking, it directs interested readers to reliable sources. Authors such as Behrendt and Inikori are addressing specific issues with the slave trade, such as the careers of captains and mortality among them, and mortality among slaves, and the profitability of the slave trade. These questions require aggregate data, based on individual voyage or vessel info, without digressing into more detailed examination of each voyage. The profitability data on the slave trade that has survived comes from completed voyages; the year Lune was lost, 22% of British slave ships were captured or wrecked on their voyages. A moment's thought would lead one to realize that the completed voyages (not all of which were particularly profitable), had to pay for the unsuccessful ones. To continue in business, Case had to make a profit on the vessels that came back that covered his losses on Lune. And what of the entrepreneurs who tried slave trading and quit after one truncated, or simply unprofitable voyage? And before someone objects that insurance covered the losses, insurance premia take expected losses into account. Even the letter of marque database, which too is a secondary source, provides confirmatory or corrective information on vessels and masters. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, as expected, not a single source with significant coverage just databases (and the marque database is extremely minimal too boot), mentions in Lloyds, and so on. Fram (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Acad Ronin's keep vote. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Article lacks substantive sources specifically about this ship, just database entries or comprehensive listings of ships' movements. Discussion of the slave trade's profitability and mortality and voyages' usual or exceptional statistics might be better included in pages like Slave ship, List of slave ships, Atlantic_slave_trade#Atlantic_shipment, or a new subarticle rather than those of individual non-notable ships. Reywas92^Talk 23:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of slave ships as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Merge appropriate detail, with refs, into ship entry in Lune (ship) and in List of slave ships, and redirect to Lune (ship). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Merge and redirect to List of slave ships. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources are about this ship specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No problem with the truth of the article, but any individual slave ship will be NN, unless there is something very special about it. The length of the voyage (which surprised the nom) is probably not unusual. It often took some time to dispose of a cargo and collect a lading of slaves. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate detail, with refs, into ship entry in Lune (ship) and in List of slave ships. Davidships (talk) 00:29, 27 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!} 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database is a reliable secondary source (where Acad Ronin describes it above as "primary", that is not in the WP context, but just in the general sense of a principal source). Davidships (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Yes it is a RS, but that does not alter the fact that the ship is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect is emerging as potential outcome but at the moment there's no consensus on the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of slave ships; no significant coverage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of slave ships would be the best solution, since information for a standalone article about this ship named Lune is sketchy. TH1980 (talk) 23:34, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Patterson (composer)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable beyond his writing credit on "Everything Is Awesome". Getting a Washington Post interview is big, but it explicitly calls him an unknown and also I'd consider it a primary interview. Beyond that you've got ASCAP (is that even considered a reliable publication?) and everything else is just for the awards he was nominated for without any in-depth coverage of the actual guy. Interestingly, the article was first created with all the current tags in place except for notability, and unfortunately the article improvements since have mostly been the couple dozen majorly unsourced paragraphs of prose and the list of TV credits. QuietHere (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Massachusetts. QuietHere (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Everything Is Awesome; not seeing anything save for primary sources, interviews, and other sources that do not count towards notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenswing (talk • contribs) 16:42, October 24, 2022 (UTC)
Keep per WP:COMPOSER#1, he has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition, and there is also significant in-depth coverage of his career in WaPo that is much more than an interview: ‘Everything Is Awesome’ for Shawn Patterson, the most unlikely of best original song Oscar nominees that can further develop the article. Additional bio/career details in the Boston Globe: Shawn Patterson’s ‘LEGO’ song awaits Oscar fate and The Independent: The Lego Movie song 'Everything is Awesome' written during an 'ugly' divorce, more honors and a performance: ASCAP Honors Top Film & TV Composers at 2015 Ceremony (Billboard). Beccaynr (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where the sources you posted say anything about the subject. The only real detail in the Globe piece is that the subject grew up in Athol. What we get from the Independent piece is that he co-wrote the song when he was going through a divorce ... well, we get that from Patterson, actually. From that Billboard piece, we get that Patterson was one of the ones who received a "PRO’s Composers’ Choice Award," an award of so little prominence it's not mentioned in the "Awards" section of the ASCAP article: [39]. Since you cite WP:COMPOSER, that does hold that "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work." Ravenswing 02:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing, can you access the WaPo article and the extensive coverage of his career? e.g. he was a "former plastic-factory laborer", "began as a production assistant on the “Alvin and the Chipmunks”" (at age 24), "wrote a song about how everything was awesome amid withering divorce proceedings", "started playing music as a teenager and practiced up to 10 hours a day", "intense study and brief stints in music school", "odd jobs that occupied his days and nights" (with details), "In 1990, he settled in L.A.", "first official sale was “Rock the House,” a rap written for a 1991 Chipmunks album" then "another P.A. job at Spumco, the fledgling animation house that produced “The Ren & Stimpy Show.”", "In 2010, Adult Swim’s “Robot Chicken” hired Patterson" [where he scored] "the series’s final three seasons", "wrote songs for guests such as Kesha and the RZA" and then was recruited by Chris McKay for the LEGO Movie, and the article adds details about the success of the song. Beccaynr (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can, actually. And I just don't trust the article to be independent; every paragraph is interspersed with a paragraph of quotes from Patterson, and I don't get a sense that it's genuinely independent, instead of being wholly reliant on Patterson's own words. Even if we were to set that aside, the GNG requires multiple sources providing significant coverage to the subject. Where are the others? Ravenswing 02:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N the article needs to meet either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), and he meets WP:COMPOSER, and the award nominations and awards support WP:ANYBIO. The Washington Post is a respected news outlet, and the article is not styled as a Q&A or regurgitation of what he says about himself, and appears to include information about his career that would be subject to fact-checking. It also offers some commentary about him. Beccaynr (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I would like to reemphasise what I already said about this above. Like Ravenswing, I'm not convinced this interview, despite being from the prestigious and clearly reliable Washington Post, is anything more than a primary source. As explained on WP:INTERVIEW, the primary-vs-secondary line can be very fuzzy generally, but here it just looks too close to the primary end of that spectrum for me to trust it. And again, the Post writer calls our guy an unknown. No qualifiers (e.g. "relative unknown"), no past tense, just that he is not a well known figure (at least at the time of writing). If that's not a statement of non-notability, then I don't know what it means. QuietHere (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He became well-known by the press coverage, awards, chart placements, etc, so there appears to be no need to disregard secondary coverage and the clear pass of the SNG, based on commentary (which is not a primary source) about his past career in one of the national media sources that helped make him well-known. The WP:COMPOSER guideline asks for verifiable information to build an article, which is amply provided by WaPo and other sources. Beccaynr (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Beast also notes his past career, in addition to a Q&A interview, which further shows there is verifiable information about his career to develop the article. Beccaynr (talk) 12:31, 27 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!} 19:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect if it could be considered helpful as noted above. No real source establishing the notability of the composer, just of the work. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 02:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grammy nominated . Also, well-known for Lego movie anthem. A lot of coverage exists [40], [41], [42], [43]. HCIhistory (talk) 09:16, 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 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!} 00:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Olsen[edit]

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

I'm not certain if this musician is sufficiently notable. A lot of this article was created by one editor in 2011 citing her own page and seems similar to this page (although it could have copied from here). Looking at WP:SINGER, I don't know if multiple albums on Rounder Records or winning the singular folk festival is enough. Although she claims to be a frequent contributor to Acoustic Guitar magazine, I can't find her when I search their website (I will add the one reference I did find). It took some hunting but I do see her credit for the song Pain here (under Kristina Michelle Olson). Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if this is significant but I note that she isn't listed as an article at Rounder Records' website. According to her website, her first four albums were with Rounder Records and the remaining ones have been her own production company. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there isn't enough independent sourcing to carry an article here. Like the nom I went looking for Acoustic Guitar Magazine sources thinking it might add enough, but the only one I found that hadn't been yet is she plays one of the lessons in the 24 lessons to learn guitar package to magazine sells. -WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 02:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 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 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!} 00:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majida Maayouf[edit]

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

Doesn't clear the notability bar for athletes. Olympic-qualified runner who ended up not competing in the 2020 Summer Olympics. Mooonswimmer 01:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Clearly doesn't meet WP:SPORTSPERSON, as she did not compete in the Tokyo Olympics. Patr2016 (talk) 22:59, 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.

[1] Tyler, Joshua Edward (4 November 2021). "Genshin Impact Beats Fortnite, GTA 5 Revenue In Best First Year Ever". ScreenRant. Retrieved 10 November 2022.

[2] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1bKnGetHoc

[1]

[2]