Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 08	November 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. (non-admin closure) AmirŞah 11:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Active Shooter (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. Awards all appear to be minor.

PROD removed with "This film is significant for being one of the few movies involving a school shooting plot, as well as winning an award at a film festival" DonaldD23 talk to me 23:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No critical reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and I can't find any. IMdB is about as bare. No mentions of this film online that I see. Oaktree b (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I could find nothing other than it was a quarterfinalist in the Academy Nicholl Fellowship competition of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. However, that is such a minor achievement, I wouldn't consider it as providing any basis for notability.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's really no coverage of the film. It's won some awards but they're not major enough to give notability on that basis alone. Honestly, most short films never gain the coverage needed to establish notability and this is not an exception. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per search engine, nothing is available. Thus fail WP:NFILM. Zafafadubu (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 23:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dzhilindo Bezghubchenko[edit]

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

Article about footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage is routine/trivial in nature (such as statistical database entries). PROD was removed without any evidence that the article could satisfy our notability guidelines (which is becoming an annoying pattern I must say). Jogurney (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found his name mentioned in a squad list in Top News but found barely anything else. The PROD was removed with comment deprod, seems to be some coverage on page but fails to mention that the coverage is all just profile pages on stats sites. Clearly this is unacceptable for SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 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. Joyous! | Talk 23:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Hope In Action[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last Afd was 13 years ago with minimum participation. I still believe it fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to identify any reliable sources, except a mention in a 2009 Journal article (in the non-peer-reviewed "Relational Child and Youth Care Practice"). I can't see any obvious merge targets as an WP:ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SOAP, this is a worthy but one of many local charities. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 03:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Paterson (production designer)[edit]

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

Neither WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE appear to be met. The sources linked to are both dead but archived here and here but they contain barely any information. My own searches have not turned up anything but brief mentions in reliable sources, so quite some way from the substantial coverage in multiple sources that we require. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The third bullet point on WP:CREATIVE seems like it might apply, but I'm not sure that that would make up for the lack of independent reliable sources per WP:BIO. Patr2016 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. Theres enough sources that I can see on various searches online. I would not oppose draftifying this. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFI winner, two other AFI nominations, two BAFTA nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:51, 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!} 03:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper Twins[edit]

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

No real indication of notability. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Advertising. PepperBeast (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few of the links seem dead and I can't find anything for this "consulting thing" or whatever they are. Oaktree b (talk) 22:02, 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. Deleting as a probably hoax. Joyous! | Talk 23:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madinawa[edit]

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

Since Imam Ghali, Banu Gha and House of Maiduniya all appear to be hoaxes, this automatically means that other articles that are part of the same series need to be scrutinised too. There are a few hits for "Madinawa" but none seem to relate to a Nigerian clan. The term "Awliya Madinawa Malamai" only seems to yield Wikipedia mirrors. The references are the same fake ones used by the article creator and their sockpuppet accounts. The only one that might have given this article hope was Abdullahi, Ahmed (1999). Madinawan Kano. Danlami Printers but this book does not seem to actually exist. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Islam, Morocco, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's all formed by fake people, delete here as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whatever is going in with this bizarre clutch of articles it doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 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. (non-admin closure) AmirŞah 11:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Movlyan[edit]

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

His 10 minutes in the third tier of Ukraine might be enough to avoid a PROD but I can't see anything that would allow for a passing of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The article has 8 references and 4 external links, all of which are database profile pages which SPORTBASIC clearly says are not enough to confer notability. What's more, the database profile pages all duplicate each other and none of them are bringing anything unique to the table. A Ukrainian source search yields nothing better. Best source I can find is PFL which is just his name appearing in a squad list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SPORTCRIT; "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." So, the fact this footballer played one match in the Ukrainian third level really isn't a sufficient reason to remove a PROD, but I understand that PRODs can be removed for any reason at all so here we are again. This article comprehensively fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To repeat others, there is no evidence of notability. Anwegmann (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Fifthapril (talk) 05:25, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM This upcoming movie doesn't meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. The shooting of the movie has not even started. Only the first look poster has been released. Sonal Mathew (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Kerala. Sonal Mathew (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 23:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Draftify We can't judge that this film is notable or not notable because it hasn't been distributed so we can't get any reviews or know how widely does it distributed. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd be inclined to draftify if we knew this was going to release soon and could anticipate the coverage, but if we move to draft now there's a fair chance that the draft will end up WP:G13 deleted before the subject's as-yet-unannounced release date. I think it's cleaner to just delete now and allow for WP:REFUND when more coverage is available. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Rapetsoa[edit]

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

Paid editor has repeatedly bypassed AFC process and moved to main space against all advice. Non notable fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR with only minor roles. WP:TOOSOON applies. Draft says she appears in The Queen (South African TV series) and Generations: The Legacy but they are not mentioned in those articles. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Theroadislong , I took all the suggestions that the other editors gave me including yours. I disclosed that I was paid to write the article and put the disclosures on my user page and article talk page (using the template). I also removed the sources and references that I was suggested to remove. Please look at the references 4,5,6 and 16- They mention that she joined the television shows The Queen and Generations: The Legacy (the articles mention the roles that she plays and it briefly describes them, with mention of her name).

In regards to her not having done substantial work, I'd like to argue that this year is her breakthrough year and if an article that proves that entertainers have done a certain amount of work (even if it is just one or three projects) they should be able to stay as articles. To make it easier for other contributors to add to their articles because if an entertainers article is deleted because they've only been involved in 5 projects. Then it means that a new article will have to be created when they have done 10 projects and that the contributor has to start from scratch. When it could be easier if an article is already there and it is developed to add the other (new) works.

Thank you Alien Superstar (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 16 is now No. 7 after my recent edit. Alien Superstar (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot @ColinFine @199.208.172.35 @Victor Schmidt I would like to invite all the editors who previously made suggestions including @Theroadislong to please review the article. Alien Superstar (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about the AfD side of Wikipedia. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON, and you should have either gone through AfC or waited until after her breakthrough year to try to push your client into mainspace. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong In regards to bypassing the articles for creation process I apologise. If you look at my talk page, I once requested a peer review of the article. My other attempts at requesting the help of other editors with the article have been at Wikipedia Teahouse. I will look through your suggestions to help me improve my contributions. Alien Superstar (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was up to me, I'd ban any paid editing. That said, she isn't notable yet so not at GNG. I hope you refund her money at least. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The South African is the best source, she's got coverage over meme's she's posted about feminine menstrual issues, I'd not call it RS. I don't even see that the role she has is a major part of the series, ACTOR isn't met. Oaktree b (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b I see that the major reason you want the article to be deleted is because I'm a paid editor. I do think that your disdain for paid editing should not make you overlook that all facts that have been mentioned can be verified by sources that meet the reliable sources guidelines. Internet personalities can get mentioned in articles for the things they post including pranks if it is their niche; I don't think articles always have to be about hard news to be considered RS.

Regarding NP: NACTOR, I've said before that I think even if an entertainer has done minimum work, their article should be allowed to stay for other contributors to develop it. Or at the very least it should be reduced to a stub. Alien Superstar (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't meet the notability requirements, we don't park things here until they are notable. Pranks or not, we need extensive coverage in reliable sources, unrelated to the subject. It really doesn't matter what your talent or skill is, if there is no coverage, we can't have an article here. Show us stories about her in broadly distributed forms of media, that are more than simple mentions. I can't find any and you haven't provided any either. Oaktree b (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and the photo appears to be a copyvio, it's reproduced elsewhere and uploaded here by a red-linked uploader, with no evidence of their own work submitted to OTRS. all kinds of red flags here. Oaktree b (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b References: 1,5,6,7 & 13 offer coverage solely about the subject. Alien Superstar (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b I uploaded the image & I just removed it after the notice you put up. Alien Superstar (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations are serious, please respect them. I'd suggest you read the multiple help pages on wikipedia and listen to them and the advice given before contributing anything further. It keeps this place safe and functional. Oaktree b (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop treating me like a vandalizer, if I was I would not ask editors questions to learn. Also the picture was provided to me by employer and I was granted permission to use it and they were given permission by client so I did not violate any copyrights. Alien Superstar (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is a process (the OTRS) through which you can submit proof of authorship and giving permission to use it here; this generally applies when the uploader is not the author of the photograph. We simply need to verify that the author of the work in question has given permission for it to be used freely, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. I'm not entirely familiar with the process, but we have many editors who'd be happy to help! Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:Promotion and the subject not meeting NBIO. As background, the paid editor who created the article was advised to go through AfC rather than moving it to mainspace again, but unfortunately ignored that advice. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
● Keep Due to references [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] having in-depth coverage about the subject. I (paid editor) admit my mistake and should have submitted the article for review before moving it to main space. I should have thoroughly read the Afc article instead of only enquiring on teahouse and on the article's talk page about assistance. I will consider all suggestions moving forward. Alien Superstar (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle Hi, after you moved the article to draft the first time I asked you to clarify your reasons for moving it and you did not respond. Your reasons were COI and Notability and I have addressed that. Alien Superstar (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 2 are somewhat extensive, 3, 4 and 5 are basically photo essays. Unsure if the first two meet RS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alien Superstar. It is actually this warning that I am referring to: [6]. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So he was warned, did it, warned again, and still did it? Incredible. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b my pronouns are not he/him, I think its best to stick to they/them when addressing people who have not made their pronouns clear. Alien Superstar (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, sorry. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrsSnoozyTurtle I see what you're referring to, thanks. I thought a review was the same thing as moving an article to main space. Alien Superstar (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, you thought that this warning of "...if you move it to main space again you are likely to be blocked" meant it was ok to move it back to mainspace again? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that "you can submit the article for review" was the same as moving it to main space because other editors could review it. But I learned its not the same thing. Alien Superstar (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the use of the word "likely" as "might happen" meaning that there is a 50/50 chance that some editors can be fair while others immediately X paid editors because of their own reasons. Alien Superstar (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's the problem with Savanna News as a source: from the "About us" page: "Disclaimer: The opinion of journalists and writers for Savannanews.com is not necessarily shared by Savanna Media (Pty) Limited." This reads to me like the writers are free-lancers and the site does not have editorial oversight. Editorial oversight is something we look for in reliable sources. I also don't find a mention of an editorial board nor staff writers. When looking at individual articles with a by-line, and clicking on the by-line, some of the writers have email addresses at the site's address, but multiple others are given the email "[email protected]". I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the site, I'm saying that the information to confirm it as a reliable source is not there. If such information exists, then we can consider it a good source. Lamona (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to discount it if we have better sources; we don't, so it's an iffy pass. On the balance, I'm still not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lamona thank you for your comment. I looked at other publications namely: Briefly [7] and The South African [8] to compare them with savanna news and found that South African online publications are similar. News sites have parent companies and they all have a set of author's that regularly write stories for the publications. I would assume that if the website puts their names on it; they work routinely meaning it could be possible they are not just freelancers. Alien Superstar (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we had another source like that, it would help notability standards here. There isn't quite enough, yet. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The sources are of very poor quality and don't seem to be reliable or SIGCOV. It's going to need higher quality sources and I am having difficulty finding these online. And here's a reminder: the internet contains an incredible amount of information, but if we're going to write articles about every person we're able to verify exists and has a minor magazine appearance, then our notability guidelines might not be in very good shape. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:27, 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. (non-admin closure) AmirŞah 11:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lynn[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. He has run for office several times but never won. He doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, he's received "significant press coverage", though. It seemed originally that he was the favorite to win, which would of course grant him notability, but he has lost the general. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every candidate in every election always gets some degree of campaign coverage, so the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself sufficient to say that the candidate passes WP:GNG and is therefore exempted from having to pass WP:NPOL — if that were how it worked, then every candidate would always get that exemption, and NPOL itself would be meaningless since nobody would ever actually have to be measured against it at all anymore. Rather, an unelected candidate's sourcing has to pass at least one of two other tests: either (a) it demonstrates that they already had sufficient preexisting notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article independently of the candidacy (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) it demonstrates a reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies (e.g. Christine O'Donnell.) But this demonstrates neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--Mpen320 (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Go ahead. He's lost his notability with me.Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 03:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) AmirŞah 11:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apple M2[edit]

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

This article has only one source and, relies entirely on a single source for a long time. I think it needs to delete or redirect to Apple silicon#Apple M2. And, someone redirected to Apple silicon#Apple M2 and someone removed redirect regularly. Hajoon0102 💬 15:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Hajoon0102 💬 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is based on an Apple press release; I can't find sources talking about the chip itself, only that it's been used in various computer thingies. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an article has poor references is not a reason to delete an article. The question is whether third party reliable coverage independent of the subject exists, and it does, e.g. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m2-chip and a zillion other articles. Samboy (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of reliable sources available, definitely more than press releases. Google is your friend. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very easily found multiple reliable sources with a simple Google search. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Realistically pretty much every major product announcement from the world's most valuable corporation is going to get plenty of coverage and is going to be notable. Thparkth (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy SNOW keep If ever there was a WP:SNOW keep, this is it. This is a major chip made by a world-class hardware and software company. It has a ton of coverage both in the technical press and the mainstream press. This AFD should be withdrawn or closed rapidly by an admin. Samboy (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is blindly obvious there are many sources here such as [18]. --Mvqr (talk) 12:36, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harbi (Islamic law)[edit]

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

This article is extremely inadequately sourced and frankly baffling. It is currently almost entirely sourced to a defense college masters thesis, with some trivial secondary references to an online, possibly self-published direct translation of a single 14th-century sheikh - so that's a single primary source and a single sub-par secondary source. Harbi is also just a common Arabic word meaning pertaining to war/military/enemy, and it is not clearly established by this single thesis that it was widely used a standalone legal term outside of simply being used as a descriptive adjective or noun within the context of legal works. The Dar al-harb is a real term, and the term harbi is very briefly on that page with theoretically better sources than are present here, so maybe it is, but it is also are tricky to verify there. However, even accepting that it could be a legal jargon term used at some point, I'm still not sure that is sufficient to merit a standalone page outside of Dar al-harb, which is the only possible legal context in which this term could ever be used; it is otherwise wholly irrelevant. Outside of this, the quality issues speak for themselves, and, as an aside, this page was also created by a now blocked multiple account user, so has already dodged a bullet not being speedily deleted many moons ago. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unsure what this is about. The FR wiki article talks about Harbi as a family name. May have been linked in error. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: There's a separate disambiguation page for Harbi (without any parenthetical disambiguation) here too. Same thing; family name/people. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this is a dictionary definition of a single term while the main concept is already covered at Divisions of the world in Islam#Dar al-harb so it would be redundant. I have searched in Arabic to see if there is anything to indicate a discussion about the meaning of the term in Islamic law because such a debate would probably make the topic notable. Google search isn’t great in Arabic with this kind of non-specific term but I don’t see anything to suggest such a debate or sustained scholarly interest. Finding nothing else I turn to the sources cited. 1 and 2 are different versions of the same document. The first version is 1251 pages long and the inline indications of location don’t make sense in terms of indicating where in it the term ‘harbi’ might occur. The second version is 727 pages long and does contain a locator reference. However the given reference point Q4.17 doesn’t exist in it. The third source is an “unclassified thesis” for a Masters degree from a colonel in US military intelligence. Whatever the qualities of this author might be, I would not regard them as being an authority on Islamic law. So while this is at best a dictionary definition, it looks to me like some kind of synthesis of comments from disparate sources. Interestingly although the article makes reference to Ibn Rushd and Shaybani it doesn’t cite them so these are just unsupported claims. This is all much too flimsy to base an encyclopedia article on. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this example of what Wikipedia is not. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:38, 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. Star Mississippi 03:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladeshi actors[edit]

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

Adds absolutely nothing that the various subcategories of Category:Bangladeshi actors don't already provide (with better organization). Clarityfiend (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I a country of over 165 million people, the number of notable actors is likely to be very large. Category:Bangladeshi actresses contains 228 distinct articles, according to PetScan. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- look the template Asian actors, every single Asian country has at least one list, and some have three. This is true for the rest of the world. We have always had a list of actors by nationality. Unless we are changing policy here; if not, then I would say keep. If you are for changing policy, bundle the nomination and add every single list of X actors. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What "policy" is that? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others." Perfectly valid navigational list.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this useless topic that is not at all manageable. Incidentally, the Asian actors example that has been suggested as a template no longer exists for very good reasons. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:36, 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 keep. I invite you to discuss a page title change on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medanta[edit]

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

Because of its age, this article cannot be immediately draftified without widespread agreement. In addition, it does not meet the requirements for notability set forth by Wikipedia in the following categories: NCORP, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH. However, as a result of this deletion discussion, this article may be moved to draftspace for further incubation or get merged with Naresh Trehan. RPSkokie (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and India. RPSkokie (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing in the article, as well as additional sources I find through Google-based searches indicate to me that this likely passes WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 18:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32 I respectfully disagree with you because the vast majority of links on Google-based searches (News, Scholar, Books) and the Wikipedia Library point to Medanta-The Medicity, a hospital in Gurgaon, and not the actual company. But, there has been an increase in the coverage of its ongoing initial public offering, so I leave it to your discretion. On the other hand, there is a reasonable likelihood that the hospital can have a page as per NHOSPITAL. Having said that, a separate source analysis is necessary for it. RPSkokie (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I searched about this hospital in google. I got a lot of news references. I have added some news references on the Page, I think pass to WP:GNG. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the available references, I changed the context and language of the article so that it now refers to a hospital instead of a company. If it gets past WP:NHOSPITAL, then we should update the name from Medanta to Medanta-The Medicity. RPSkokie (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep per WP:hospital. This source [19] may pass that at least one source that discusses the organization in-depth (many paragraphs directly about the hospital). Also, there are some other links from Indian reliable media concerning the subject. As a mix of a hospital and a company [20] the page can get some notability. 多少战场龙 (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This hospital chain passes WP:NCORP, WP:GNG and soon WP:LISTED. This is an unusual nomination. The nominator has changed the subject of the article from a hospital chain to a single hospital in the middle of the AFD. A simple Google search turns up a plethora of sources to prove that Medanta is indeed a hospital chain. I have reverted this change and expanded the history section a bit. "Medanta" appears to be the trade name of the hospital chain operated by Global Health Ltd, similar to how DMart is the trade name of the supermarket chain owned by Avenue Supermarts Ltd. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Maduant (talk) 13:34, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Rapids (band)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBAND. The only articles I could find are this promotional article and this article more about bands named Grand Rapids. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first link used in the article tells you to download their song and uses the same photo as here, perhaps a copyvio (to be confirmed in a minute). The second website is no longer active, the 3rd and 4th links are basically a blurb about them before certain performances they gave. They appear to have done nothing since 2012ish and likely weren't notable then either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Photo is a copyvio from Spin magazine, tagged as such. This is the 5th photo from an AfD article that's had iffy sourcing or is a clear copyvio this week. argh. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one is actually a close call because they got some media coverage, but it is largely second-hand. Group member Clara Balzary got some press because she has a famous father (e.g. [21]), but this band is only ever mentioned briefly as one of her short-lived endeavors. Meanwhile, the other three members later formed the more notable QTY (band), and Grand Rapids comes up a lot in coverage of that band, but once again only as a brief historical tidbit. In addition to the Grand Rapids-specific sources in the article, I found this: [22], but after some initial promotional buzz they accomplished nothing that is relevant for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:57, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ces Ciuhrii[edit]

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

Passing mentions or routine coverage only, no real claim of notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Tennis, and Moldova. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily notable enough to pass the guidelines. Covered in almost all notable publications of Moldova and even in Romanian publications like Profit ([23]). He came under the scruitny in this article of another reputed publication Ziarul de Gardă. Then there is coverage by Newsmaker, a publication which is dependent on donations with an independent editorial, ([24]). Coverage by ProTV Chișinău helps to fill the gaps in information ([25]). He is the type of businessperson (oligarch?) from a small country like Moldova we need information when Wikipedia coverage is already scarce (readers would likely search him (that's why a Wikipedia article exists in local language) and would like to know who owns their media (Radio Noroc and Noroc TV), major pharmaceutical companies in Moldova/Romania, and then his role in growth of tennis in Moldova, etc.). It would have been better if nom have researched him well before nom and improved it - rather destroying somebody's work. DP Reekers (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, a routine story about opening a factory, and a puff piece on the tabloid journalism site isanatate.protv.md: underwhelming at best. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since he’s chimed in, let’s take a closer look at DP Reekers, the article creator. He began editing four days ago, during which time he’s created two articles and edited zero others. His first article, Bobo Rockefeller, has been tagged for non-notability. His second is up for deletion. He’s intimately familiar with article writing and AfD procedures. This may not be suspicious in itself, but it does at least raise questions. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make sure we are assuming good faith here... GR86 (📱) 15:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG. A lot of coverage uncovered in a thorough WP:BEFORE, given below:
- 106 articles about him in Timpul de dimineață (most of them are quite in-depth)
- 44 articles about him in Profit.ro
- 179 articles about him in ProTV Chișinău
- 9 articles about him in Ziarul de Gardă
- 585 articles about him in jurnal.md
- 317 articles about him in NOI.md
- 25 articles about him in agora.md
- 38 articles about him in newsmaker.md
- Romania Insider article
- and 1600 more results on Google News and then Google books etc and local archives/libraries. 31.205.13.161 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, the two-edit IP intimately familiar with Wikipedia jargon. Much credibility.
- And no, there aren’t 1500 articles “about him”, there are 1500 articles that may or may not mention him. In other words, meaningless. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think it might be useful to get more opinions about this proposed deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A series of simple mentions, there is also the risk that the editors of this article will be paid, they are too familiar with wikipedia's policies. The article looks like a CV.--Tysska (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPE blocked.

Delete Going through the sources provided in the article and samplings of some of the other sources provided in the discussion, they are largely what he says (his statements, comments or interviews), which are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and others are brief mentions. I suggest those voting keep to provide three sources that are WP:SIGCOV (about him, not his businesses), secondary, independent and meet reliable source criteria. See WP:THREE for guidance. Ping me if you do. Happy to reconsider. S0091 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is quite in-depth in local reliable sources, considering the size of Moldova, this should be enough. An entry in a major book like Bibliografia naţională a Moldovei. Passes WP:BASIC after stichting the sources. 87.123.39.218 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, given Bibliografia naţională a Moldovei is a national bibliography, rather than a biographical dictionary, what published work of his is noted? S0091 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP whose very first edit happens to be on this AfD: no, a random link to a book we can’t see isn’t evidence of anything.
To @S0091:, if I had to guess, the bibliographic entry refers not to an amateur tennis player but to Serghei Ciuhrii, a composer who’s published several music collections. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Biruitorul I don't have an issue with IPs in general but as I stated in my deletion opinion, I need something more concrete to change my opinion, thus my request for WP:THREE. Maybe there are sources to support notability but what has been succinctly provided thus far, I do not see it and lobbing Google search results with no curation is not helpful. Likewise, stating one needs to stitch the sources together with no guidance as to which sources and a declaration they are listed in a national bibliography with no other information, especially given the claim to notability is not as an author, is not helpful, at least to me. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing extra-ordinary with him, "guy does work" and "gives opinion on xyz thing" from what I can translate. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make any sense. The guy is an major industralist of Moldova (a relatively small economy/market). Worth a separate page. 31.205.13.226 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, he isn’t major, he’s an amateur tennis player who dabbles in business, nothing especially remarkable about that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep seems a notable case. One comment was from UPE, striked accordingly.
- Ah yes, yet another single-edit IP immediately jumping to edit this discussion. Predictably boring by now. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 31.205.13.226 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per source analysis by S0091. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per S0091. Showing me that your client has the best local sources money can buy is not going to sway me. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep valid point by S0091 about some of the sources however this subject appears to more cited in non-english sources and shows notability in other regions. This doesn't mean its delete material as per WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. The subject is considerably cited with RSs over at ru:Чухрий, Чеслав and ro:Ceslav Ciuhrii. GR86 (📱) 13:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I just checked the ro.wiki sources. (The ru.wiki ones are largely the same.) We have, of the links that still function:

- [26] The subject posted on Facebook (seriously, this made the news)
- [27] A softball interview about how he helped some poor children (not really a quotable source)
- [28] He gave $2600 to a tennis player (also not quotable)
- [29] He wished the same player a happy birthday (perhaps you wish to quote that?)

- As I think I’ve conclusively demonstrated — no, the subject is not “considerably cited with RSs” on other projects; it’s the same promotional puffery as here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @GR86 thanks for providing some specific sources to consider. Using @Biruitorul's number scheming, 4, 5 and 7 are his statements so primary/not WP:INDY and 6 doesn't say anything about him. None of these are useful for establishing notability. S0091 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn because of above GR86 (📱) 21:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian church war[edit]

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

This article is irretrievably biased. Some sections have nothing to do with the purported purpose. There is not the slightest attempt to present differing viewpoints. This article is best written after the war concludes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As you say, "irretrievably biased". סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 12:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLOWITUP. I'm sure it'll take some time but maybe I can get started on a version that's remotely acceptable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even beyond its bias, I think the foundational conceptualization of the article is original research. Jahaza (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should be noted that this article was created by User:43Darwing, a sockpuppet of the Wikipedia Foundation banned User:Bodiadub. Depending on whether we think the subsequent edits (diff) are substantial, it may be eligible for WP:G5 deletion. Jahaza (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Orthodox Church of Ukraine was formed as a union of several orthodox denominations in Ukraine. There is potentially scope for an article on what came before, which this might provide a basis for. The whole subject is heavily tied up with politics, due to Russia seeking to use the Moscow patriarchate to impose itself on Ukraine, contrary to the will of most Ukrainian people. This has no doubt been exacerbated by the new phase of the war since 24 February 2022. If this article is kept it should be pruned of material after the formation of the national church in 2018. Certainly the word "war" is inappropriate to church affairs. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inevitably biased. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 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 Speedy Delete under criteria WP:A7. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nand Kishor Nautiyal[edit]

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

Indian activist fails WP:GNG with no substantial coverage in reliable sources. He contested as a candidate of Uttarakhand Kranti Dal from the 'Birokhal Vidhan Sabha' constituency but didn't succeed. Fails WP:NPOL also.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttarakhand. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:A7 because he seems a normal citizen who has only contested an election. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can only find passing mentions of him online in reliable sources, such as his name included in lists of political activists in Uttarakhand in what appear to be research papers in Google Books. Fails WP:NPOL. About half of the links at the bottom of the article similarly mention him as having run for office and come a distant second or third, the rest don't mention him and appear to be background info for his political work. According to Google Translate, This reference merely says "On the other hand, the local rural state agitator Nand Kishore Nautiyal and all the villagers say that the accident that has happened is very sad..." Storchy (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtawar Cadet College for Girls[edit]

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

Don't see how it meets WP:GNG, but happy to be proved wrong. Only potential angle seems to be it being the first-girls only college in Pakistan. If deleted, WP:SALT may be required as it's been created multiple times recently (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Bakhtawar_Cadet_College_for_Girls). Kj cheetham (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Pakistan. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found some sources:

Gulf News
Daily Jang (Urdu)
Khabar Walay (Urdu)
Zero Point (Urdu)
Urdu Point (Urdu)
Urdu Point

I think the college has some news coverage to pass WP:GNG. The first 2 of above sources give pretty deep coverage. Insight 3 (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be sufficient coverage for WP:GNG. Clearly notable as the first girls' cadet college in Pakistan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded and improved the above article today using the 2 existing Dawn newspaper references and also using above sources suggested by User:Insight 3. Added more categories. Significant news coverage exists for this college to pass WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as nominator) Based on the sources found above I'm now convinced it meets WP:GNG. Clearly my own WP:BEFORE was insufficient. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:43, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Vohra[edit]

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

Significant, secondary source, coverage not shown (and I couldn't seem to find evidence on google), insufficient article content, and subject seems to fail WP:JOURNALIST. - GA Melbourne (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - GA Melbourne (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the sources which I found from Google are reliable but not independent from the subject. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. User4edits (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed per above Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:09, 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. Given the new guidelines about notability guidelines for athletes, this has to be decided as a Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shihab Razzaq[edit]

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

Iraqi footballer, fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORCRIT, coverage sourced to databases, mentions, no "significant coverage, that is, multiple published, non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Also noting, "if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level." Which Razzaq has not. Redirected twice by two editors (Me being one) as an alternative to delection, both reverted. So here we are... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iraq. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Possibly has Arabic-langauge sources (particularly as an international player) but I don't speak it. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it would make more sense to add a Template:notability, for example, than to delete the article which would likely get re-created as he is an Iraq national team player. Being an international player usually constitutes notability, so it's more about adding the correct sources rather than removing the article. Hashim-afc (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of international player articles have been deleted since NFOOTY was abolished. We need to see the sources about the player to keep the article. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Hashim-afc. International capped player with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist on making these non policy based arguments? Have you got any coverage of him or not? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Ongoing career or any international caps are irrelevant, WP:NSPORTS requires all subjects to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG IMO, sourcing already on page is adequate.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp Can you link to any of the significant coverage that is needed for him to pass GNG that is currently in the article? All I see is database pages or trivial mentions of him. Alvaldi (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - international caps, ongoing career... Irrelevant. All that matters is whether the subject has significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources or not. In this case, I can find no evidence that this footballer does so it should be deleted. The non-guideline arguments are at best a distraction or smokescreen, the reality is that WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC are the only relevant guidelines and neither of the guidelines make any statements of 'a footballer with international caps and ongoing career must be kept'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If an editor wants to work with the content of this article, let me know and I can move it into Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superstitions of Malaysian Chinese[edit]

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

Original research Newbamboo (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Lists, and Malaysia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this article stands, there are no sources except for a silly season news story about a rock in Bukit Minyak associated with supersition, and that has nothing to do with Chinese Malaysians; and there is no general discussion of the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. This could potentially be an article, but not as it stands. Malaysian Chinese obviously have superstitions unique to them, and those obviously have drawn coverage, which unfortunately is not reflected here. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:42, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howard High School (Macon, Georgia)[edit]

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

No sources establishing notability could be found. Page is currently a stub with one line, and an unsourced infobox. WPscatter ^t/_c 06:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). WPscatter ^t/_c 06:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article, which has been expanded since the nomination, has a couple more sources. Mucube (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found quite few sources behind a paywall ($1 for a month's subscription) but the permalink function doesn't seem to work consistently to allow others to see the articles without signing in. I added text from The Telegraph newspaper to the quote parameter of one citation, but ran out of steam tonight. If others have the same problem accessing the cited articles, I can give it more attention on another day. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing available satisifies WP:GNG, as it does for pretty much any secondary school in the English-speaking western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article meets WP:GNG by way of the sources added to the article since it was nominated for deletion. It would be ideal if there was some non-local sources so that it could meet WP:ORG (specifically WP:AUD) by way of WP:NSCHOOL, but as WP:NSCHOOL specifically points out, meeting WP:GNG but not WP:ORG is perfectly fine too for a high school. If a Google search was the research done beforehand I can absolutely see why the nom didn't find anything, because something like "Howard High School" "Macon" -wikipedia doesn't show anything useful and certainly doesn't show the kind of sources added to the article, it just lists a bunch of calendar events and other things that would not contribute to the notability of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the school page was significantly improved with RS that allow to pass GNG. 多少战场龙 (talk) 08:36, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Cheuk[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Article contains a number of unverified statements. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, Australia, and New York. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find a single RS, and it would seem unlikely any exist. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meeting ANYBIO, no GNG or reliable sources. --多少战场龙 (talk) 08:25, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendar Kanwar[edit]

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

Doesn't have any references, I tried to see if there was anything about her with a Google search but found very little (WP:NWRITER). BLP tagged as needing citations since 2018. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Rajasthan. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything in a Google search. I think she is not notable even I can't find anything that says "She authored Rajasthan, a coffee table book, besides writing several brochures on Rajasthan that won national awards. She is the recipient of numerous awards including Best Travel Writer (1993–94) from the Government of Rajasthan." LordVoldemort728 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, probably a paid/promo article. User4edits (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Welcome to Wikipedia everybody! We hope you like the place and decide to stay. I'm boldly closing after reading the discussion and seeing the four new keep assertions in the last few hours. Consensus of this discussion is that the subject meets WP:NBASIC, the article is not an attack page, and that sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources is present or otherwise exists. A SPI has been created to deal with any socking or coordination. Of the extended confirmed contributors, none asserted delete. By my reading, this is a clear consensus. BusterD (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maram Susli[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article does not establish notability from reliable sources beyond some peripheral mentions of conspiracy theories, many of them second hand quoting of WP:DEPRECATED sources and social media. Does not meet the requirements of WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO. This is a borderline WP:ATTACK page that exists primarily to disparage its subject. JeanPassepartout (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this assessment, this has gone on for long enough. Most of the article is a WP:ATTACK. Xaeonx7 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur with this assessment for the same reason.Jumpn jza (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC) — Jumpn jza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I also concur with this assessment; if libel-free biographical articles is an objective of Wiki editorial, this one is dangerously close to impeding it.Osaka-ali(talk) 14:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC) — Osaka-ali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Passes WP:NBASIC given there have been whole articles dedicated to her in Haaretz, news.com.au, the Daily Beast, Al Bawaba, Al Arabiya, and paragraphs at a time in other news sources. She gets mentioned in many news items and books on disinformation in the Syrian conflict and in connection with Kremlin-associated propaganda. She's not obscure. Regarding the issue of whether this is an "attack" page, two points: 1. NPOV does not require wikipedians to say equally nice and not-nice things about a subject. If the coverage of her in reliable sources isn't glowing, that's what the page should reflect. Attack pages typically consist of poorly sourced or unsourced negative material ie negative material that may very well not be true. 2. If the article even taking that into account is biased, then the solution is to tidy up the article, not delete it, given that sources are actually there. OsFish (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment adding links to RS sources: Regarding the claim, repeated by several redlink/SPA commenters here, that there is no proper RS coverage of the subject, that's just not true. Here are articles wholly or mainly about her.

The Best English-speaking Friend Assad Could Ask For, Front and Center on the Net in Haaretz

Australian blogger Syrian Girl posts views on ISIS, US airstrikes, Ebola from news.com.au

The Kardashian Look-Alike Trolling for Assad in The Daily Beast

Meet the YouTube Sensation Who Predicts Syria’s Future in Vice (magazine)

‘Partisan Girl’ & the Online Battle for Syria in Al Bawaba

How Syrians Talk About Assad: Zaina Erhaim vs. Partisan Girl in Al Bawaba

The Kardashian wannabe trolling for Assad in Al Arabiya

She is mentioned in scholarly works, for example Culloty, Eileen. "Evaluating conspiracy claims as public sphere communication". Journal for Cultural Research. 25 (1): 36–50.:

Meanwhile, a source Postol had used for his Ghouta investigation had risen in prominence on social media, prompting some journal- ists to investigate her credibility and, by association, Postol’s. The Syrian-Australian blogger Maram Susli (also known as Syrian Girl and Partisan Girl) advocated a pro- regime stance on Syria and endorsed conspiracy theories about 9/11 Truth, the Holocaust, and the New World Order (Shachtman & Kennedy, 2017). She became a regular Infowars contributor and appeared on far-right media with white supremacists including the leader of the Ku Klux Klan (ibid).

I should point out that most if not all of these sources are used in the article. Claims from certain SPA editors, passionately editing the page, that there is no RS sourcing to provide notability are hard to fathom, and it would be great if some concrete explanation about why these sources don't establish notability could be put forward. Rather than incivility. OsFish (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a coordinate sock puppet or troll faction at work with three consecutive redletter accounts stating "I concur/I also concur/I also concur..." on the same day. Two said comments seven minutes apart. None provide substantial support or argumentation. Each have no user page, just talk pages with little or nothing but automated new-user information placed by Wikipedia bots. As to the sole point made by this person or persons, objecting that the content is "libel", there are many options for specific edits toning down the language and/or requiring sourcing. However, it is a long-standing Wikipedia approach every user learns their first year, ie., to strive for WP:NPV WP:NPOV. That is the remedy, not deletion. Provided that the minimal standard of notability is reached, the logical Wikiway here would be keep.Deletionism is a scourge upon WP and deletions should be done very judiciously as they tend towards whitewashing many situations where a bit of tidying would preserve important facts for the record. Wikidgood (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikidgood seems to be correct. Either there’s some off wiki coordination going on or all the new /sleeper SPA accounts (JeanPassepartout, Jumpn jza, Osaka-ali, Akashical, Xaeonx7, maybe one or two others) are all the same person. Their (very brief) editing histories are virtually indistinguishable. Volunteer Marek 07:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, take a look at this, specifically on 15 October. Xaeonx7 edits the article and then 5 minutes later Jumpn jza makes two edits and is followed by Xaeonx7 12 minutes later. Sockpuppetry, perhaps??? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, should I start an SPI? I have enough evidence. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. here. It's the first time I've lodged one. I hope I haven't made too weak a case. OsFish (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OsFish, thanks for opening the case. I have added another possible sockpuppet to the case. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's pretty clear that this particular page is just run by a bunch of trolls who have too much time on their hands. Xaeonx7 (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move your "delete" to your initial comment? Thanks. Otherwise it looks like trying to !vote twice. OsFish (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons... No. Xaeonx7 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Article is mostly a list of things that she has said and done that can be confirmed by checking her media pages. She has appeared on the shows listed. She has said the things quoted. Her influence has been the subject of government inquiry so she is not an obscure private citizen. Libel requires that the items published are untrue. Any items that are incorrect or have no supporting proof can be edited out. The call for deletion is clearly an attempt to hide the history. Akashical (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, you disagree with the request for deletion and you are for Keep. Or so it appears. Let us know if that is not the case. Thank you for your thoughts. Wikidgood (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should be deleted. First, the piece doesn't quote of impact and relevance beyond some very politicized media outlets. Secondly, most of the article is libel. It is clear from the edit history tha it is an AP:Attack page. Also, "volunteer Marek" and "Osfish" are some of the people in in the intent of Ms. Susli's defamation. Most of the contributors to the post have very few things to say about her other than negative issues. No effort is being made on this article to credit her with her trajectory, or to her personal achievements, or any biographical effort in hopes to light or guide the public on the positive aspects of her persona. Instead, what we get is a string of negative issues based on third party accounts. If Ms. Susli has a string of articles expressing her thoughts on a conflict that affects is a syrian citizen, that have some impact, is that enough to permanently scar her? Think about the effects that the unwarranted influence and impact has over a person who has a Wikipedia page dedicated to her and edited and written with the sole venomous intention of harming her private persona, and smearing her in front of everyone. Is Wikipedia becoming the vantage point for validating cancellation culture? I don't think so. Furthermore, can you point out to anyone in the realm of Ms. Susli's topics that has been the target of such institutionalized attacks? The progressive weaponization of content is something that we should consider in this forum. Because it can happen to Ms. Susli, but what prevents it from happening to anyone around the planet with a point of view that some people might find controversial. Is this Robespierrian train of thought and procedures in line with what WP represents? I think not. User:Psychonuts 10:58 UTC, 7 November 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC) — Psychonuts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The reason I believe this article should be deleted is because there are numerous examples of legitimate information about Susli being removed without legitimate reasons being given, which should suggest to any reasonable person that what is being presented is not a neutral account of Susli's activities, rather a one-sided account that portrays her in a negative light. For example: 1) Reference to notable appearance and interviews by Maram Susli, by neutral, mainstream and left wing news outlets such as France24 and Skynews are consistently removed, in favor of retaining only right wing outlets even if they are more obscure and not as notable. This can be seen in the edit On 07:24, 8 November 2022‎ by Osfish, and the edit on 07:37, 8 November 2022‎ by Volunteer Marek. 2) Volunteer Marek (on 04:52, 2 November 2022) added prejudicial terminology, including describing Susli as a "conspiracy theorist" even though there is no evidence that she identifies as one. Volunteer Marek also deleted reference to Susli as a "journalist", though doing so in the spirit of an attack, they have essentially agreed that the page does not meet the requirements of WP:JOURNALIST and hence should be deleted. 3) I have tried to remove "ParmesanGirl" from this account because there is no reference for it, and seems to be an insult that does not belong on this page - this was added by 118.211.229.153 who should be blocked. By Jumpn jza (talk)
Keep As per User:Wikidgood comments above, the answer to bias or libel is not deletion but judicious editing. Fundamentally, the page passes WP:NBASIC. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should be deleted. Maram Susli is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. There are no reviews of Susli's videos or social media remarks that merit a serious and citable discussion. The subject's occasional articles in various, mostly obscure publications, do not constitute enough material for the subject to be a person of interest to the broad public. The article is a clear WP:ATTACK page that does not meet the relevant criteria of, nor serve any legitimate purpose of, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wootendw (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, an account that's made 25 edits over the last 9 years somehow finds this discussion and proceeds to call the article an "WP:ATTACK page", mirroring the language used by other users above, which is surprising when you consider the fact that two accounts yesterday removed most controversial content from the article. Either there's coordinated editing involved or this is a bizarre coincidence. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 03:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: Maram Susli is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. There are no reviews of Susli's videos or social media remarks that merit a serious and citable discussion. The subject's occasional articles in various, mostly obscure publications, do not constitute enough material for the subject to be a person of interest to the broad public. Wootendw (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Either there's coordinated editing involved or this is a bizarre coincidence."

The subject of Wikipedia editors gone awry is making more and more news. I read some things about Max Blumenthal's and Kari Lake's problems just two days ago. But they are indisputably, public persons. Maram Susli is not. Wikipedia editors are making a public person out of a private one. Wootendw (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wootendw, "Wikipedia editors are making a public person out of a private one." <-- that makes no sense and there is no guideline that says there can't be an article about a person with many reliable sources available online. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 05:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article, including a long History of edits, amounts to harassment. Wootendw (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How are we harassing her? This is a rather neutral article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully a relist will sort out the SPA accounts showing up to this AFD to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The issues that the delete comments present are all surmountable problems and do not warrant deletion of the article. The notability of the article's subject does not appear to be in question, as it appears well-established via the sources in the article. Saying it's an WP:ATTACK page doesn't hold up past an initial glance at the article and the wording of what WP:ATTACK actually is. If Maram Susli#Interviews and opinions is problematic, that can be resolved via editing and discussion (which has not been attempted afaik) rather than deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maram Susli should a private person like millions other persons with Twitter and YouTube accounts that some like you don't agree with. Just because you've invested you life in this project, doesn't make the subject noteworthy for Wikipedia. Wootendw (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"that some like you don't agree with" I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there, but "noteworthy" is not a standard for deletion, notability is and has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. The notability of this individual seems fairly well established. - Aoidh (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Including the History, there has been far, far more written about Maram Susli in this Wikipedia article than every in everything else written on the Maram Susli put together. That's not normal. Wootendw (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if true, that's still not cause for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if true, that's still not cause for deletion"

It should not have been entered in the first place. Wootendw (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to edit the article, but any attempt at vandalism or bad-faith edits will be removed. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A private person that pots much public content, is a public figure. Your argument doesn't hold water. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Of course as soon as I say the notability isn't in question the very next comment in this AfD does exactly that, but the article's subject meeting WP:GNG is easily demonstrated just by the sources already in the article; given that we use Wikipedia's criteria for determining notability, concerns that the subject is not notable do not hold up to that standard. - Aoidh (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:ATTACK because it has been in defamation for years. At least one Wikipedia editor has been topic-banned from this and now Wikipedia-banned for another person's 'bio'. Wootendw (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If true, none of that warrants the deletion of the article. Deletion is not cleanup. The problems you're citing are problems fixed via editing. - Aoidh (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article should never have been inserted in the first place. Wootendw (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's amply sourced, using a neutral point of view. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:NBASIC given coverage in multiple news sources. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as 0xDeadbeef said, the article easily clears NBASIC. The nomination itself is pretty sus, considering the single-purpose accounts. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What conspiracy theories? It's saying her account is not a bot controlled by the Kremlin; the conspiracy is that people are claiming it's not a bot? It could a bit of a re-write but it's mostly NPOV. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article should be deleted, I’ve seen enough evidence in the recent days to see that it is an WP:attack page on a non-noteable, better editing will not stop the defemation as there are too many trolls — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorExistential (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC) — ProfessorExistential (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment to Closer Along with many of the other SPA accounts, this is an account that took part in an editing flurry in September 2021 and has done very little since. I shall note it in the current SPI. OsFish (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OsFish, I already did that :) — Nythar (💬-🎃) 06:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - you got there first! Should I delete my comment there?OsFish (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could -- both of our comments say about the same thing anyway. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 06:17, 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 merge to Unicorns!. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorns II[edit]

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

No SIGCOV; only mentioned in passing at most within RS's. GNG fail. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't find reviews via Wikipedia Library general search (EBSCO), Gale OneFile, ProQuest, or Newspapers.com. The one exciting hit that comes up everywhere is this 2014 journal article in Mythlore (via JSTOR), but that turns out to be a passing mention about how it "would most likely be very thought-provoking" to include this (and other volumes) in a cross-sectional study on unicorns. Agree that WP:GNG is not met. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have subsequently added a couple more sources which probably don't confer notability but are also more than zero. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If Unicorns! is kept, it would be useful to merge or at least redirect. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks Espresso Addict for flagging; I wasn't aware of the Unicorns! AfD. I'm now seeing that there are dozens of very similar anthologies on Jack Dann page. I am striking my !delete vote and propose to table this AfD, as well as the Unicorns! one, until after the RfC on mass deletions (or deletions of mass-created articles from one source), as this seems to be a very good example of exactly that. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I was sceptical, largely because of the exclamation mark, but they seem to have got very high-quality authors and quite a few of them seem to have reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to merge this discussion with the AfD on Unicorns! now, or table them both. I think that these two books would be better covered together than in separate articles. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That probably is a good option InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure of the policies surrounding "tabling" an AFD but I will relist it for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Unicorns! which has been kept. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help perform the merge, as I am the one who added sources to both articles. Just ping me if needed. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Unicorns!, its predecessor, per the above. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to merge. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:25, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth H. Shubin Stein[edit]

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

The article as I found it was pure vanispam. A Google News search delivers nothing of any substance at all: there is no notability here. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Medicine, and New York. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The history shows that a large amount of content, including all the references, has already been removed as spam. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I cannot find any better sources. Edwardx (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fluffy vanispam. Nothing found that we can use for sourcing.Oaktree b (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete handily fails notability criteria — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the beginning of the article, subject is introduced as an investor, but the continuation of the article is about a surgeon or doctor. Anyway the lack of sufficient sources is quite evident. Alimovvarsu (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Giulia (Naples)[edit]

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

tagged for lack of sources since 11 years ago. fails WP:NPLACE. lettherebedarklight〔晚安おやすみ〕ping me when replying 03:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight〔晚安おやすみ〕ping me when replying 03:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Italy. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more on Italian Wikipedia. I find it difficult to believe that an 18th century villa of this size is not notable. Don't be confused by the photo on Italian Wikipedia - it's of a completely different, much older, ruined structure! This is the real building. There's enough online to meet WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT (e.g. [30][31]). Italian online heritage listing being what it is, I can't find a listing for it, but I would be very surprised if it were not heritage listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigcov exists in Italian sources: e.g. this and this. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its an important building by a leading Italian architect of the 18th century, Luigi Vanvitelli.Mistico Dois (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife of North America[edit]

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

Even if this page were improved beyond its horrific present state, there is simply no need for this article. We have Fauna of the United States and Fauna of Canada (although, surprisingly enough, we don't have equivalents for Mexico and most Central American countries; creating those would be a much more reasonable endeavour), and there is no reason the information here cannot be split into those. To put it simply, "Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information", according to WP:ENC (emphasis not mine). Admittedly, the examples given in the linked WP:PLOT are a little different, but the general idea and message remain. No matter how much better this article gets, it can never pass that criterion. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:39, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is almost a stub article with very little information. We already have articles for the US and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly broad article that is better served at the country level or below. The continental United States is already a very large and geographically diverse area. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I saw this come up on NPP I went halfway through the process of nominating it for deletion myself before I reconsidered. What changed my mind is the existence of well-developed similar articles - Fauna of Asia, Fauna of Australia, Fauna of Europe - that do a very nice job of giving biogeographical summaries at the continental level despite the existence of articles on sub-regions. It obviously can be done, and done well. This article is in suboptimal state right now but it's not useless, and it can be expanded without fundamental issues. (And then there's Fauna of South America. Urgh. Now that could do with redirection until further notice.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: My thoughts: This is probably a notable topic but is questionably written, does not elaborate upon any current coverage, sourced poorly, additionally the creator has also been warned for WP:CIR concerns. I don't think it should be kept in the mainspace as its current form. ~~though perhaps draftification could be a decent compromise?~~ Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification is not a compromise. It means that an article will not be seen by readers who may be able to improve it, and will be deleted in six months under WP:G13. We should take the decision here and now as to whether this is a notable topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that draftification is not an option here, but not because of notability concerns. The notability of the topic can't really be in question. What we have here is a structural issue - is this better treated as individual sub-topics, or is there a benefit in a large-scale overview article? I'd say the articles linked above indicate the latter. Is the current article content then so bad that it has to be nuked? Nope - it's rather bare-bones, consisting mostly of links to sub-topics, but that is fine as a scaffolding for expansion and can easily remain in mainspace in this state. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: Solid point, I've striked my suggestion. VickKiang (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Even if this article could be recreated in a much better state, it is almost impossible to improve in its current state because it is too small. 2601:647:5800:4D2:64A4:7B08:985:3C48 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently this is a stub that provides very little information, is overly broad in scope, and does not improve or expand upon its linked pages. Moreover, while Elmidae posted some decently written topics, others such as Fauna of South America are less well-written, depending on few references. Moreover, I had a glance at Fauna of Australia, but it is similar to the article about Fauna of the United States in that it refers the country Australia IMO instead of referring to the continent Australasia (or Oceania), Elmidae, I'm not an expert on fauna so please correct me if this is wrong. Several pages this links, e.g., List of mammals of North America and List of reptiles of North America, are significantly more in-depth in contrast, the Habitats section also seems to be a poor version of Geography of North America. With draftifiation not being a suitable option here, therefore, IMHO this version should be probably deleted per WP:TNT as it's preferable to start over entirely a well-sourced one. VickKiang (talk) 03:48, 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 keep. ✗plicit 03:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden–Venezuela relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article claims Venezuela has an embassy in Stockholm but it's not listed here, List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_Sweden. Lacking aspects that typically make notable relations like significant trade, migration, agreements and state visits. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Sweden, and Venezuela. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Venezuelan embassy in Stockholm was closed down in 2018, but had a long history. It was founded as a consulate in 1948, and upgraded to an embassy in 1961. /Julle (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article, translating from the Spanish version and starting a Hisotry section. The article should meet WP:GNG now. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Contains basic information verified by reliable sources. While the article could certainly be expanded per the suggestions in the nom, I see no compelling reason to delete now that the article has been improved. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per improvements to the article since it was taken to AfD. I've also added the piece of information I mentioned above, which were absent from the Spanish article. /Julle (talk) 14:24, 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 01:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 Dunfermline-Blairhall[edit]

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

Non-notable bus route. No significant coverage in secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is clearly not a notable bus route. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another non notable run of them mill bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 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 01:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3A Dunfermline-Fife Leisure Park[edit]

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

Non-notable bus route. I cannot find anything in secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only source cited is a broken link to a bus timetable (not an independent source). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with 4 Dunfermline-Blairhall, this is clearly not a particularly notable bus route and would not seem to have anything exceptional that would merit it having its own Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another non notable run of them mill bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 09:15, 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 redirect to Glassboro–Camden Line. Consensus is clear, even if process isn' t necesarily. Star Mississippi 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glassboro station (Glassboro–Camden Line)[edit]

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

This is only a proposed station on a proposed line. There is no guarantee it will even be built, and as it stands it does not meet GNG; a basic search for sources did not turn up anything approaching SIGCOV. Creation of articles on proposed stations on this line is wildly premature. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >> Glassboro–Camden Line, where station is listed. Djflem (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a redirect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This shouldn't be at AfD. Where a topic is verifiable and part of a larger topic that is notable, but not notable itself then the correct courses of action are either merge and redirect, or just redirect - neither of which are deletion. If it is, or you think it might be, controversial then start a discussion on the talk page proposing the (merge and) redirect; if it attracts no responses after a reasonable period of time just go ahead and do it. Nominating pages for deletion that have no chance of being deleted are not good use of editor's time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does have to be at AfD, because a certain editor (Garuda3) will contest any redirects just because he can. I'll try just redirecting next time, but I'm sure it will be contested and we will be right back here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't need to be at AfD. You think redirection might be controversial, so you should start a discussion on the talk page (optionally linked from somewhere like the trains WikiProject) proposing redirection - as I wrote in my above comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how many people will see a talk page discussion on such an obscure article? Zero. And if I'm asking people to join a discussion at the WikiProject, people will still be seeing it and it will still be using editor time. If you think I'm wasting time, then people can just not comment on the AfD and then no time is wasted.

The thing is, redirection isn't controversial in this case, nobody has argued this merits its own page. But again, Garuda3 will contest the redirect just because he can, even though he has no actual reason to (for instance, finding significant coverage that shows a redirect would be a bad idea, with would be a valid reason to contest). Last time he did this and didn't even bother to show up at the AfD, which closed with unanimous consensus to redirect. Filing an AfD allows an affirmative consensus to redirect and actually saves time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I just redirect, someone will contest and say "take it to AfD". If I take it to AfD, someone will say "why didn't you just redirect it, you're wasting our time." Do you see how this puts me in a catch-22 where no matter what I do, someone's going to complain? When I'm doing NPP, I need to get articles out of the queue, and this one was not fit to remain in mainspace. If I did what you said, there'd be so many posts on WT:TRAINS about non-notable stations it would be almost overwhelming. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline, so there is no rush "get pages out of the queue"; but your main problem seems to be a disagreement with a specific editor. AfD is not the correct forum for disputes of that nature and you should seek resolution in the correct place rather than use AfD to bypass doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My nominating this for deletion had nothing to do with a specific editor and everything to do with processing pages in NPP. I chose AfD because I know redirects are frequently contested, and the name of the editor who does it doesn't change that fact. It's easy to say there's no rush when the NPP backlog is low, but until very recently it was over 10,000 pages; timely reviewing is necessary to prevent that from recurring. As I said above, next time I will redirect/merge rather than initially using AfD, but if it's contested I will have no choice but to use AfD. I have actually been trying to minimize the number of things I bring to AfD from NPP by using tags for not enough sources or notability and then giving the page creator a few days to address the issue, as has Onel5969 who also often reviews train related articles at NPP; most of what I've nominated lately has been uncontroversial. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >> Glassboro–Camden Line, per Djflem. A redirect will preserve the information for future restoration and expansion. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glassboro–Camden Line per everyone else. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:45, 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 00:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the Arab League[edit]

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

Lacks WP:Notability. We already have continents and regions like List of tallest structures in the Middle East. Not sure what the added value is of creating lists according to 'random' organizations. Randam (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, duplicative of country-level lists and the Middle East list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Middle East. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seemingly listcruft. NavjotSR (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 22:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarhap Hair Line[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any references that meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. I note nothing links to this article. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and South Africa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources found, and the topic has no notability at all. Timothytyy (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear notable or to have significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unable to locate and references that meet NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Litmus (Mozilla)[edit]

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

This article does not cover a notable topic.

Litmus appears to have been mainly a tool for internal use at Mozilla; it was strictly speaking available for others to use but never seems to have become popular. It was abandoned some time ago, and doesn't appear to be of particular historical interest. There are no third-party references in the article, and a brief search didn't find anything that would be useful as a third-party reference. Kiwi128 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Approximately nobody outside of Mozilla appears to have ever used or mentioned this. 3mi1y (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG as no independent and reliable sources have been found. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and 0xDeadbeef. No significance can be seen and sources are not reliable enough to verify content. Timothytyy (talk) 14:22, 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.