Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 15 September 17 >

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 redirect to Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's 50 metre freestyle. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aissatou Barry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point but I couldn't find a relevant one just for swimmers and besides the notability criteria between a swimmer and an athlete should be relatively the same. Obviously the equivalent swimming championship etc. Cowlibob (talk) 12:23, 19 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TT-34[edit]

TT-34 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable band, there is very little info about them online. 747pilot (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searching online "ТТ-34" (using the Cyrillic character te instead of the Latin letter T, turns up more content, some of which goes beyond passing reference. No judgement on the quality of the sources though...

They're also apparently in the (not online) Энцыклапедыя беларускай папулярнай музыкі (Encyclopedia of Belarusian popular music). Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Could not find any reliable coverage in the Google search results. Also, the sources mentioned by Tcr25 (after being translated to English) do not appear to be reliable coverage either. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:34, 18 September 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! 06:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North-West Telecom[edit]

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

No sources, not verifiable. Oliver Virk (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It seems likely to me that a public infrastructure provider for a noticeable chunk of the population of Russia will be notable. I'll grant that the sourcing of the article as it stands is poor to nonexistent but deletion is not cleanup. It seems likely there will be Russian-language sources available. If this is the case, this !vote should be upgraded from weak to normal. GoldenRing (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is inconceivable that a large regional telecommunications company in a major country is not notable, or that there are no reliable sources covering it - they're just not in English. I don't speak Russian, but Google Translate suggests these may be relevant - [1] [2] [3] Thparkth (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • :those links are not relevant at all, as they are mere routine announcements or mentions of the company (not WP:CORPDEPTH) Oliver Virk (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that they do go to verifiability, which is the proposed reason for deletion. Thparkth (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am leaning towards merging the page into Rostelekom. Oliver Virk (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC Sock strike. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Parr[edit]

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

Aspiring kickboxer. Doesn't appear to meet the current WP:NKICK or WP:NBOXING and I don't believe the existing coverage meets WP:GNG and fails WP:SIGCOV. Being daughter to a notable person does not constitute notability. However, she's is mentioned in her father’s articles.

  • Keep She's featured in the Sydney Morning Herald [4] and the Gold Coast Bulletin [5]. Appears to have met GNG, the Morning Heard article is from almost 10 yrs ago, she's had sustained coverage for a while now it seems. Daily Mail also [6]. Yes, the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source, but it shows media coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If she continues fighting, I have a feeling one day she will have an article, but the mentioned articles are merely covering local fights of a 7-11 years old, there's no claim to notability there. The only reason there was an article in the first place is because she's Riding off her dad's "John Wayne Parr's daughter". Hasn't won notable titles as per WP:NBOXING and WP:NKICK. She has only one boxing fight. Until she's makes a name for herself as a notable kickboxer/boxer she's only John Wayne Parr's daughter. Thus why I suggested the Redirect. Lethweimaster (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I agree with Lethweimaster, there isn't enough coverage solely on Jasmine herself to pass GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 08:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG with coverage such as these from the Gold Coast Bulletin, Herald Sun, Nationwide News, The Sidney Morning Herald and News.com.au. Alvaldi (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually look at the sources, the links you cited are non-notable matches from an 11 years old child or do not meet WP:SIGCOV. For example: The Nationwide news link is only a 30 seconds video of the subject getting her arm raised with the caption referencing her father: daughter of Australia kickboxer and boxer John Wayne Parr won the Australian boxing title.. Her only fight is for an Australian boxing title which does not meet WP:NBOXING. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing or failing WP:NBOXING is irrelevant in AfD's and her age or the level of the the competitions she participated in doesn't matter either. What matters is whether she was significantly covered. The Nationwide video aside, she still has multiple sources of significant coverage in reliable sources over a period of several years. Alvaldi (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? AfD's are exactly about verifying if the subject is passing or falling notability criteria, and subject fails them. Why did you cite the Nationwide link if it doesn't pass SIGCOV? Do you even know what is WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV? And yes the level of competition absolutely matters as per WP:NBOXING. As for GNG, the article is poorly sourced and the citations used do not make her pass: Article about from dad's gym (not independent) Our Fighters, article of John Wayne Parr talking about her Dad defends daughter's kickboxing fight, article about her dad on Sherdog (mentioning her) John Wayne Parr: The Gun Slinger’s Last Ride, article about her dad with passing mention of her Mundine to make boxing comeback, Grappling competition results South Pacific BJJ results, article of her mom not mentionning her [7]. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NSPORTS makes it very clear that it does not supersede WP:GNG and when taken to AfD, all subjects must be shown to have the significant coverage to pass GNG, regardless of whether they pass any sport guidelines. Likewise, failing one of the sport guidelines has no bearing on a subjects notability. SIGCOV is what matters. The lack of SIGCOV sources currently in the article is irrelevant as several SIGCOV sources have already been presented in this discussion that obviously can be added to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources listed are already in the article. One of the sources listed was a 30sec video with one sentence, not SIGCOV worthy. I am not convinced the subject deserves a stand-alone article for now, 1 maybe 2 decent coverage doesn't make it pass WP:GNG for a stand alone. Majority if it, not all of the articles are based on her Dad. There needs to be some-kind of claim to notability. Otherwise every influencer on earth will pass GNG. The girl is currently a non-notable fighter, 1 boxing fight for a non-notable title. Like I said previously, I think if she continues fighting, she will have better coverage and titles, not just riding off her dads coattails. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with the video being treated as non-sigcov, there are still multiple sources of sigcov presented here that establish that she passes GNG. She is notable as a fighter as several reliable and independent publications have taken note of her. And it doesn't matter if some articles are primarily about her dad as long as there is significant coverage of her in them. Per WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Alvaldi (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. There is quite a bit of coverage in public media independent of the subject since over five years.

Additionally, one could suggest that WP:NKICK criteria is reviewed? 1) There is only a few kickboxers these days that would win Raja and Lumpinee titles (so what happens with Glory, ONE FC, Rise, etc) , and 2) Today, there seem to be no such a thing in kickboxing as "a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source" that would have a rating.Zafir94 (talk)

  • Comments I'm leaning towards redirect. I'm not sure how to view articles that are about her, but only because she's the daughter of someone notable (note her young opponents are not considered notable)--and notability isn't inherited. She clearly fails WP:NKICK and one pro boxing match doesn't seem significant. This is not the place for a discussion of WP:NKICK, but I will mention that previous versions of WP:NKICK, before the big revamp of sports criteria, did list other titles that showed notability. The change is why Jasmine's mother went from having an article to being a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Participants seem divided over whether to Keep or Redirect. Only supporter of Delete is nominate User:Lethweimaster (please sign your statements).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I change my opinion from Delete to Redirect (to John Wayne Parr#Family).Lethweimaster (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice to speedy renomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Area Code[edit]

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

I was unable to find significant coverage of this geographic coordinate system; most results are mirrors of Wikipedia or the organization who created the system. The only source is primary, after I removed WP:OR regarding the intellectual property claims on this algorithm. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page was initially created by the banned user Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) in 2004, but according to articleinfo tool, the main contributors are a 99.xx IP geolocating to Mississauga; Krauss (talk · contribs); Heron (talk · contribs); and Robocoder (talk · contribs). I found a discussion from 2013 questioning notability on the talk page:

Notability?

Are there independent and reliably published sources that go into depth about this system that we can use to establish its notability? Google scholar found only 9 papers mentioning it, and some of them mention it only very briefly as an example of a grid-based system. One of the sources that does go into depth seems to explicitly argue against notability, calling NAC "another not very popular coordinate system". I hesitate to take more drastic steps with this article after the uproar over the related deletion of Base 30, but its current unsourced state is not acceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not popularity. We're surely planning to keep Ford Edsel and buggy whip. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but those were all well known at one time. Was this? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Officially adopted by the state of Mongolia as the main addressing system: [8] Yk4ever (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to see non-primary sources about this (the link you give is primary) but that is enough to at least sway my opinion from its previous value of "the fact that all sources are primary suggests that it is likely not notable" to "likely to be notable but needs better sourcing". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mongolia passed a resolution to use it in 2008, but was it ever carried out? I can't find anything beyond the resolution press releases. There is no mention in any WP:RSS. The article itself makes no WP:Credible claim of significance. Thundermaker (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It is a proprietary system and I question its longevity, and thus how much can be said for it. Nevertheless it seems to meet notability. Plenty of sources refer to it, such as [9], there are papers about it such as [10], stuff that I cannot read but also that seem to cite it such as [11] and mention in books too, such as [12]. I will put one or two of those in the article further reading. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's proprietary and seeing we're spaning a 20 year period on its notability, I think we have a rational nexus for suggesting delete. I will hold off on voting but this is what I found:
  • The format is by a nonprofit organization, NAC Geographic Products Inc. [13] website looks like it recently came back online?
  • Blog entry from 2004 explaining its usefulness. Even though it's self published, this seemed like it explains the usefulness at the time - before smartphones and when GPS was still a new thing for consumers.
do we have an article of different types of addressing or coordinate systems? That would be a good alternative to deletion. – The Grid (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. After all this, there seems to be only a single secondary source that discusses this in any significant detail. That doesn't add up to WP:GNG. Regarding the Mongolia thing, they may have officially adopted it, but I can't find anything to show it was actually used. And they seem to have changed to a different system in 2016 anyway. So we have a proprietary system, similar in form to many other systems, that doesn't seem to have been written about in any significant amount, or used in any significant amount. I don't see a good merge target here, so I think deletion makes the most sense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I am unhappy with delete because I think the sources I found above demonstrate some notability worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia somewhere. There is a published paper about it, and even though it is largely historical now, it is historical. A minor footnote but not nothing. I have no objection to merge. There is not much to say about this, and we don't actually need the detail of the encoding as that is in the paper that can be cited. But I think it should be a footnote somewhere. Address geocoding is another page that is not in a good way and I don't have time right now to improve it. However, it links to the NAC article and I would be content with a close that is a merge to the Address geocoding page, where instead of linking to the article, the merged content is a line indicating its existence and describing it in a sentence and linking to source [3] above. I could find time to merge that in, but not to improve the page itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added mergeable content to Address geocoding and Geographic coordinate system. If consensus is delete, I would suggest a redirect to Address geocoding. I note that this article is in better shape and more obviously notable than Place code linked from that page. I haven't done WP:BEFORE yet on that page, but the nom. may wish to consider if that one should go to AfD too, especially if consensus here is delete or merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of JavaScript engines[edit]

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

It's a technology article that hasn't been significantly improved since 2007 when it was created (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_JavaScript_engines&diff=151547395&oldid=149512033). All functions and objects in the article are from before ECMAScript (2009) and any JS engine, that implements ECMAScript (all that are being used are ECMAScript engines), implements all of them. Comparing them is pointless. Listing all the standard functions is not the topic of the article. The current version of ECMAScript is 13, the table in the article goes up to 6. — Updatepedia (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a "simple listing" that is specifically mentioned under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As Enterprisey said, it has no context and is painfully out-of-date (which is itself an admittedly surmountable problem, if that was the only problem). Things like "Implementation of global objects" are such hyper-specific levels of minutiae that are WP:UNDUE when looking at the reliable sources that could be used surrounding those details. What little there is that could be argued is WP:DUE in some way would easily fit on a simple table on a more appropriate article rather than having a standalone article, and I don't even think putting a table somewhere else is appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 20:05, 18 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Makowski[edit]

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

Did their PhD 4 years ago, has some seemingly minor awards, created some software packages (including Easystats). Don't see how would meet WP:NPROF, and is probably WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of WP:N. A Google search only brings his own social networks, lists of research papers, and a couple of interviews. I live a few kilometers away from Paris, and I haven't seen anything on him in the local media either. Interestingly, the editor who created this article, as well as the ones on NeuroKit and easystats, claims that he is an expert on subjects around psychology, currently learning R, and that he lives in Paris and Spain. So this might be a WP:COI situation. BilletsMauves€500 17:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context Hello, thank you for rising this issue. On the initial motivation for the page:
    • In my opinion meets WP:AC 1 (author of very influential papers and tools across multiple fields: he has already more than 3000 citations within a few years of activity - which says a lot) and perhaps 2 (though I am not sure the awards can be easily objectively labelled as "highly" prestigious).
    • On the other hand, it is true that he is quite young academically (thesis earned in 2018), so I thought about TOO SOON too. But all in all, I think his contribution already deserves to be documented. But I am okay with the deletion if the contribution is not deemed enough.
    • Regarding the COI, yes I did work at the university where he did PhD, and know some of his network (in particular one person with whom he published several papers with). Never really had any interaction with (or related to) the person, so I thought this does not qualify for COI. That being said, it is true that I have become aware of this person quite recently - as the previous editor suggests - during my learning of R (in the context of which I created the easystats page - a tool I know use personally use a lot). I did not see any COI in it, but perhaps I am not well aware of wikipedia's stance on that, so it could be my fault. Apologies for these potential undisclosed ties. Neuropsychologist (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I thought the level of citations was good and a very promising start to a career, and will likely be notable in the future, but I stand by my original WP:TOOSOON comment. Early career awards (like a paper award and postdoc fellowship) don't really add anything to notability. The SIPS Commendation is not definitely not highly prestigious. The COI sounds a bit borderline to me, so perhaps best to leave someone else to comment on that if needed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GS cites enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON and failing any one criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. I searched PUBMED and of 12 papers authored or co-authored in the past five years three were first-authorships and two were last-authorships. (In US academia first generally means the person who did the actual writing and last being the person who headed the project.) It's impressively prolific but we judge notability on what is written about the subject rather than what is written by them. (If publication count was a qualifier I'd have an article!) Blue Riband► 21:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not seeing how this meets WP:NOTE or WP:NACADEMIC. Quick cursory search doesn't turn up anything that points to the contrary
  • Weak delete per probably too soon - we have tended to delete articles about new scholars. He earned his doctorate four years ago. Short of literally an Einstein, only tenured professors meet WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 23 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Malmö shooting[edit]

2018 Malmö shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A shooting among other shootings, of which there are countless every day across the world. When it was created, it was argued on the talk page that this one was notable because of the effects this particular shooting would have on the ongoing conflicts in Malmö. In hindsight, I have been unable to find sources to support this, and a request on the talk page for any sources to back this up has been unanswered for one and a half year. /Julle (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Sweden. /Julle (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be worth noting for the record that the creator—Albin Schmitt—was blocked indefinitely in August 2018 for Persistent disruptive editing, BLP issues, disruptive templating and generally uncollaborative editing. (see User talk:Albin Schmitt/Archive 1#August 2018_3). The editor who asserted on the talk page that the article meets notability requirements—1Kwords (then known as AadaamS)—was blocked indefinitely in December 2021 for being WP:NOTHERE (see ANI thread for details). The latter was also blocked on Swedish-language Wikipedia for two years in October 2021 for misrepresenting sources (see sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer om administrationen av Wikipedia/Arkiv 2021#1Kwords allvarliga brister i källhantering). This may go some way in explaining why the January 2021 request for sources on the talk page has gone unanswered, seeing as they are the principal authors of this article. TompaDompa (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We had a rash of editors around this time try to put a bunch of alarmist crime articles up only to make a WP:POINT about 'crime increases' in places they don't regard as 'desirable' or having 'desirable people', and this was definitely one of them. There's absolutely no reason for this article to remain, and it didn't affect anything but as a fleeting talking point in some political ad. Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can see, four years later, that this event does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA.Sjö (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks a lasting impact in the encyclopedic sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draken Bowser (talk • contribs) 07:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While gun violence does appear to be on the increase in Sweden, a fatal shooting of three people is still rare anywhere in Europe and therefore a highly notable event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I live in the city in question, and it doesn't seem to me like this has, in hindsight, been treated as a highly notable event even locally – deadly gun violence is unfortunately commonplace here. Looking at WP:EVENTCRITERIA, it seems to fit perfectly with #4, "usually not notable". As the page states, "[n]otable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle" and I can't see that kind of time-depth in the sourcing here. /Julle (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service summary of George S. Patton[edit]

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

"Military career of George S. Patton" is an article we need, but this is not that. This is a big list of all his bling. Half of this article is a timeline of his military career, and the other half is a ribbon bar and copy-pastes of the citations for his notable awards. This is unencyclopedic and a shadow of the article merited by Patton's career. Put succinctly, this is a shrine to Patton and it should thusly be deleted. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Awards, Military, and United States of America. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel like we have this already. A long list of bullet points, nothing needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The ribbon rack is a feature Wikipedia has essentially done away with. A list of assignments and promotion dates belongs in a military career article, which is mostly what the current biography is. I don't see anything here worth saving because most of it is UNDUE. Perhaps future books on the subject will allow a clean break between military career and other personal life at which point these details could return. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not especially useful and devoid of context. Intothatdarkness 00:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a simple list that does not put Patton's tours of duty and awards in any context. TH1980 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially just a bullet-point summary of another article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent POVFORK. Wareon (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - devoid of context, and severely lacking in citations compared to the sheer volume of text, this is just a classic WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 23 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Niyazov[edit]

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

non-notable person, article contains only genealogical data and his father's political positions. Norden1990 (talk) 21:23, 16 September 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 Jesse Quin. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Quin & The Mets[edit]

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

Contested prod back in 2013; the person contesting it promised to "improve the quality of the information within," but this has not been done, likely because WP:SIGCOV just does not seem to exist. Checking every permutation of the band name -- ampersand, no ampersand, separate parts -- doesn't turn up anything that is not already covered in the article for Jesse Quin. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jesse Quin. AfD is not even close to where this concern should have been brought. Sheesh. Chubbles (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PROD cannot be used twice, and the article doesn't qualify for WP:SPEEDY, so this is where it goes. It doesn't seem impossible that print sources might exist for a side project of Keane; I just couldn't find any. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So wait, are you claiming that Quin's not notable either? His article is not nominated for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No -- his article definitely needs work but the sources on him alone exist. Just not for his old band. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then a merge or a redirect is the direction to go. There's no need for this to be at AfD, because we wouldn't want a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jesse Quin. Though there is hardly anything to merge because this side project never got any reliable notice and probably never will. I can also find nothing on their lone EP. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:01, 20 September 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) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Simon (mezzo-soprano)[edit]

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

Seemingly WP:NN sister of famous person. There are a number of passing mentions of her in reviews, mentions in books written about her sister, but the only in-depth article I could find about her is already in the article where she was left out of Walter Cronkite's will.

Disclosure: Per the talk page, this article read like a PR piece and I've removed the puffery, unsourced name-dropping and unsourced claims of grandeur, most of which were via association with her sister or other cast members.

WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E seem to apply.

Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have added in coverage of her singing, work as a realtor and with the NewsHour, and her relationship with Walter Cronkite. I also pulled back in a few details that had been deleted, and added citations for those statements I recovered. There is additional coverage of her singing career, but I did not know which pieces/roles were the most important to include. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more comment - the 1997 article in the New York Times does not even mention her sisters [14], there are also two earlier NYTimes articles centered on her 1975 recital [15][16] DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO as a singer in leading roles with multiple opera companies and as a concert singer with major orchestras internationally ( such as New York City Opera, Salzburg Festival, Bordeaux Opera, New York Philharmonic, etc.) over a 25 year period (1960, 1970s, and into the mid 1980s). Additionally she also won the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions in 1962 and was awarded the Marian Anderson Award (see "Joanna Simon". Stereo Review. 27: 69. 1971. which profiles her career and verifies the facts stated previously), so she also passes criteria 9 of MUSICBIO. Further, there are lots of reviews of those performances both in the article and in a standard WP:BEFORE search (which I doubt was followed). Additionally, she won an Emmy Award for her work as a writer/correspondent for The MacNeil / Lehrer NewsHour (verified in the article to the NYT article about Simon) which means she passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 4 of WP:NJOURNALIST.4meter4 (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Significant coverage in reputable sources, sang in a world premiere, sang in major venues, an award – that's not "1 event" or "inherited". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-documented career; multiple major roles with major companies, to say nothing of the other aspects of her work. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has been completely rewritten over the last few days and establishes notability with plenty of cited reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewriting, notability has been established clearly. ZanciD (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:HEY. The article is worlds different than the state it was in when nominated for deletion, and very clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, to say nothing of specific criteria of WP:JOURNALIST (the criteria of which she also appears to meet). - Aoidh (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to recent improvements by 4meter4. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. National Emmy Award winner, she was also a principal singer with a major opera company. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 23 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shashi Isaac[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mudassa Howe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 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. Sandstein 06:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super galaxy[edit]

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

I'll reiterate what the first deletion discussion of this page has reasoned out, but with more detail as I think I have better points for this.

1. The terminology "super galaxy" is used in early astronomy, but does so in a way that not what this article suggests. It refers to what we now know as separate galaxies being originally part of the Milky Way (proposed by Harlow Shapley) and this became obselete by the time we established that there are separate galaxies.

2. The definition that the article suggests – large galaxies – are never used in the astronomical literature to refer to such objects (except from just a few popular science press releases). A quick search at the Astrophysics Data System here yielded only 12 results; with the latest one using the term explicitly is from a paper by de Vaucouleurs in 1953 and more recent ones just search results where they refer to "super galaxy groups" i.e. post-merger groups, and not use them to refer to an individual galaxy.

I hope this issue gets settled. I saw the talk page of this article with its creator lamenting about it. But I am pretty sure I can make a solid discussion regarding this. SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just of note: The first deletion discussion of this article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Galaxy from 2008 (with an uppercase 'G'). SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for my commentary, and why I use the talk page to discuss this. Fxmastermind (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term has been used in many books. And I am talking about astronomy, not any of the other uses of the term. The deleter doesn't know this, and my showing this to be true would be original research. How ironic. Fxmastermind (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I know this, sir. Which is why I am requesting to delete this page.
"The term has been used in many books" is not a valid argument for notability. As per the notability guideline: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention... Context is important here. The term is obsolete and the latest book that uses this terminology is from 1953; there have been no significant scientific papers that gained traction upon the astronomical community that used the words "super galaxy" to refer to a large galaxy. This defines the independence of the subject, as "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
Like I've said before, we have a designation for large galaxies already: cD galaxies, brightest cluster galaxies and super post mergers (the latter used by P. Ogle in 2005). This is the designation that we should use. SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another point to mention is what the proposed definition of "super galaxy" means:

...is an astronomical term used either to describe giant galaxies, formed from multiple galaxies, or to describe superclusters of galaxies.

This is just absurd; these three are totally different objects. One is a giant galaxy (which is referred to as D or cD), the other is a post-merger (not all post-mergers are giants), and the last is a vast collection of multiple galaxy clusters defined by gravitational influence of a central attractor. You cannot just describe them all under the umbrella term of "super galaxy". SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving some of the comments by the page creator here, as he can't seem to follow instructions. From Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Super galaxy (2nd nomination):

"All of the "reasoning" used is pure original research."

Excuse me? I've just used the Astrophysics Data System, a repository of astrophysical journals by SAO/NASA. The phrase "super galaxy" only appeared in 12 papers, none of which refer to a large galaxy as the article suggests. My rebuttal does not constitute WP:OR as what he wants to imply, and as stated on the Wikipedia policy itself, original research is:

...refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

There is overwhelming lack of evidence of its use in the astronomical literature, and the details pointed in the article are just a gross misrepresentation of what the sources actually imply. SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This AfD was malformed and has been fixed. @Fxmastermind, it was wholly incorrect to plce the entire header in subscript markup. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    " it was wholly incorrect to plce the entire header in subscript markup"
    ..
    I literally have no idea what you are trying say. Is there a typo there? Assuming you meant PLACE rather than pIce, it's still difficult to parse the meaning.Fxmastermind (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This term is not in regular or general use in scientific literature and WP should not have an article on this topic. Aldebarium (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. Why is there no discussion of this? Just saying something does not make it true.Fxmastermind (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a flavor of WP:NEOLOGISM, but it really just boils down to not being a term used in reliable sources to the degree that the term would qualify for an article. KoA (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is definitely not a term used in the literature. The article appears to be one editor's sandbox. Delete with prejudice. - Parejkoj (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    <nowiki>I understand there is no penalty for being wrong here, or making up things, but to argue by blanket statement, with no evidence, that isn't really an argument. 
Fxmastermind (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a way to edit this with out using the entire page. This is an absurdism. Fxmastermind (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim made above, "The term is obsolete and the latest book that uses this terminology is from 1953" is patent nonsense. Aside from the stark fact that the dictionary definition of supergalaxy matches the article definition, the term is used in hundreds of publications, scientific books and articles. A search gets confusing because the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy is referred to as the Supergalaxy, which is noted on the article Supergalaxy.

There is a vast amount of literature that used the term as defined in the astronomical sense.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22supergalaxy%22&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1960,cd_max:1981&lr=lang_en

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22supergalaxy%22&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1982,cd_max:2019&lr=lang_en

That nobody here knows this, or has done a search, is frankly not surprising. (I don't know if those naked urls will work here or not.)

The biggest bugaboo is the multitude of ways it has been used, over a long period of time. Something an encyclopedic entry would explain in detail. And the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergalaxy does just that. It explains a multitude of uses, past and present, for the term supergalaxy, (super galaxy) and very rarely super-galaxy. And none these include the aircraft or the games or the bicycle.

It's both amusing and appalling to see such blatant ignorance parading as sage wisdom. Fxmastermind (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my ignorance of the editing protocols, the obscure code used, and a complete lake of understanding of whatever strange mores are at work here, leaves me with no room to talk down to anyone, so let us not reach a misunderstanding of what is at stake here. Fxmastermind (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "... the term is used in hundreds of publications, scientific books and articles."
We have already established that there are only 12 extant papers that use this terminology in the Astrophysics Data System (see here), and not everyone of them even use "super galaxy" to refer to a large galaxy. I don't know where on Earth are the "hundreds of publications" are you talking about. So the statement that "There is a vast amount of literature that used the term as defined in the astronomical sense." is just simply false. In addition, Google searches are not a standard for this article to exist. It should fulfill Wikipedia's notability criteria.
"The biggest bugaboo is the multitude of ways it has been used, over a long period of time."
It is not the job of Wikipedia to point out the usage of a word over time, and treat it that this was sufficient enough to make its own article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:NOT).
"It's both amusing and appalling to see such blatant ignorance parading as sage wisdom."
Please, sir, to accuse anyone here of being ignorant and treating yourself in such high pedestal is an inappropriate behavior for an editor. This matter has already been brought to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and members of that project (including myself) specialize in topics like these. In this case, mere mentions of "super galaxy" in Google searches are not enough; there must be a widespread, independent usage among professional astronomers of "super galaxy." There have been very little usage of it, and this is simply not enough for it to exist as an article. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search at arXiv on the term "super galaxy" (see https://search.arxiv.org/?query=%22super+galaxy%22&in=physics&qid=1663690552556ler_nCnN_1505998205&startat=20 ) just gave me 34 results, and 90% of them just show up because they refer to "super galaxy group" or "super galaxy cluster" (i.e. Galaxy clusters and Superclusters) and not "super galaxy" to refer to a large galaxy. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a widely used term. Supposed uses of the term are referring to other subjects like galaxy clusters. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article conflates the early 20th century concept of 'supergalaxy', which is long obsolete, with recent discoveries of simply large galaxies (we already have articles on cD galaxy, brightest cluster galaxy, and list of largest galaxies). Just because a press release used the term 'super galaxy' doesn't mean it's a real category. This term is not in common use in professional astronomy; every hit I could find on NASA ADS for 21st century papers was referring to superclusters, galaxy groups or the supergalactic plane instead. There are precisely zero incoming links from mainspace, which for an article that has been around since 2008 is telling in itself. Modest Genius talk 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In 2008 an editor went and changed articles to remove the term super galaxy, and supergalaxy, from Wikipedia. because they were arguing against including an article called super galaxy (or supergalaxy, or super-galaxy). The literally searched all astronomy articles that had the term and deleted the term from them. Fxmastermind (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This absurd non discussion is absurd. Seriously. The original research is absurd. Just because somebody here claims --> " Just because a press release used the term 'super galaxy' doesn't mean it's a real category. This term is not in common use in professional astronomy"

--> does not make it true.

What is true, is that the term is used many times.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19870014829/downloads/19870014829.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1575.html

https://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/news-display.cfm?News_ID=963

https://nasa.tumblr.com/post/187921705234/hubbles-5-weirdest-black-hole-discoveries?linkId=74189911&linkId=74320629&linkId=77930653

You can claim all you want "it is not used", and refuse to look at those links. And then you can delete the article, but that is just pure ignorance at work here.

in 2008 I linked to a vast number of papers and official NASA sites using the term, and it litteraly didn't matter. Wikipedia editors know more than NASA. Which is the most blatant original research possible here. Fxmastermind (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "This absurd non discussion is absurd. Seriously. The original research is absurd. Just because somebody her claims... does not make it true." What is true, is that the term is used many times.
I don't think you get his point. Just because it is in a press release does not make it an official terminology used by professional astronomers. It is the same case as "ultramassive black holes" which saw very little use outside of press releases.
Like I've stated above, per the Notability guidelines:

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Going back to your links, the first link is about the X-ray background, and it mentions "super galaxy group". This is not the same as a super galaxy. The other link uses a variant form " super-galaxy", which again, does not mean anything but just a press release caption.
"in 2008 I linked to a vast number of papers and official NASA sites using the term, and it litteraly didn't matter. Wikipedia editors know more than NASA. Which is the most blatant original research possible here."
I checked the links you've given from the first discussion, but all that we can find are press releases and no hints of "super galaxy" actually used on a professional level paper which makes it a category. This does not advance your claim, and like I've said, notability is more that mere mentions or usages of the word. SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:42, 23 September 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 IJustine. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same Brain Podcast[edit]

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

Has been arbitrarily moved from Draftspace after the last decline of 9th Feb where TipsyElephant said "Demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY requires multiple WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE secondary sources that discuss the subject in some depth. For instance, a few articles that dedicate a couple paragraphs to discussing the podcast that are published by reputable news sources that have no connection with the podcast (i.e. The A.V. Club, Polygon, or The Hollywood Reporter). Sources that don't normally contribute to notability include WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:BLOGS, WP:YOUTUBE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. When editing Wikipedia pages about podcasts I almost always remove lists of notable guests and I don't see any reason an arbitrary list of guests should be included in this instance. Also, please read WP:REFBOMB. You shouldn't need six references to verify a single uncontroversial statement." - Still suffers from all of this, with only 1 reference being anywhere near reliable enough, all others are either YouTube or trying to rely on (somewhat) inherent notability of the guests. - RichT|C|E-Mail 19:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator, Chimatronx, has requested deletion on my talk page at User talk:Rich Smith/Archive98#Article for Same Brain Podcast - RichT|C|E-Mail 20:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to iJustine. DigitalIceAge (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to iJustine. The only source that I could find that addresses the subject of the podcast directly is this PC Mag listicle, which doesn't even include 100 words of content dedicated to the podcast. The remaining sources that I found seemed far more concerned with iJustine or a topic that had been mentioned on the podcast. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midway, Maricopa County, Arizona[edit]

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

Could not verify the existence of a settlement or community at this location. Cited sources describe a railroad siding only. –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly insufficient information exists per WP:GEOLAND to build an article. Not a legally recognised place. As per nom., appears to just be a humorous reference to railway siding. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this siding is so remote it appears that it may have been used just to allow trains going in the opposite direction to pull off, and never for loading/unloading. A named siding that was mistakenly labeled as a populated place. MB 18:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I worked on this article awhile back and at the time was unable to find any evidence that anyone lived at this siding. Cxbrx (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Said[edit]

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

Slightly different enough that it's not a G4, but exact same issues remain from July, August AfDs. If consensus remains to delete, advise SALT to enforce AfC Star Mississippi 16:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi 17:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: An article by a WP:SPA new editor creating another variant article about this film worker, on which two prior variant have been AfDed twice in the past two months. Once again, the article presents references which are about films on which the subject gets a passing mention as having been employed in some role. I'd repeat my rationale from the 2nd AfD, summarising that I am not seeing evidence that the subject meets the WP:NFILMMAKER criteria. AllyD (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as noted. Again it has been created with untranslatable, local sources. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - I agree with AllyD's rationale on the 2nd AfD. Nothing has changed. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt same reasons as before. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and probably salt. This article has been created and deleted an excessive number of times. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saddle, Arizona[edit]

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

No evidence of a community, appears to have been a siding with a few railroad-related buildings. –dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google Maps shows nothing there, yet the incorrect "is a populated place" was retained when the prod was removed. The Supreme Court case cited in the edit summary [17] indicates this was a pump house and there were "section hands who lived in the railroad quarters provided for them at this station." I see no basis for notability for just a small temporary workers' living quarters. Reywas92Talk 19:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with nom and Reywas92. I couldn't find anything except the same court transcript. A MOW location for the railroad. MB 21:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Checked U.S. Census, no population listed for this county. Mr.weedle (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable place along the Union Pacific. TH1980 (talk) 03:21, 18 September 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! 23:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tsur[edit]

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

The person doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF and WP:GNG. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - articles in Famiglia Cristiana and Cattolica News speak exclusively about him. Corriere della Sera and others contain portions of information sufficient to create an article. Every fact in the article is sourced. Also, today I've found and added that (apart from being the chairman of The Israeli Chamber of Mediators) he was named honourable president of European Union of Mediators. That is, he is highly respected among the peers.

--Shimonshameel (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC) — Shimonshameel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himansu Sekhar Nahak[edit]

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

Can't find any in-depth coverage of this individual. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faber (company)[edit]

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

Notability not shown here nor reliable sources. Online search won't help much. Not notable as a subsidiary of Franke Holding, could be merged with parent company though 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think notable company. Found some coverage in appliance trade publications. Will try to find some sigcov and post back. Andre🚐 18:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply along with GNG. I am unable to find any sources that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 17:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The itwiki page has about 8 citations, and I've dug through them there as well. Only four citations strike me as worthwhile; two are questionable in reliability ([18] and [19]) and the other two appear solidly reliable ([20] and [21]). But in general, they don't appear to have enough depth in total to be notable. SWinxy (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Not sure what went wrong with my search, perhaps a typo in the name? Clearly was wrong on this nom. Apologies/thanks for improvement. Star Mississippi 17:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Mathison[edit]

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

I'm unable to find reviews of his books, nor indications he's well cited enough to pass author or academic notability. Star Mississippi 14:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Religion. Star Mississippi 14:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Google Scholar citations of 95 and 74 for his major works are quite high for the field. That would be the way to demonstrate notability - under WP:PROF #1. I'll see what I can add to the article.StAnselm (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per citation index explanation above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF #1. His phrase "solo Scriptura" has become very important to Protestant-Catholic discussions, as evidenced by the citations in the article. StAnselm (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ritwika Gupta[edit]

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

Existing sources in the article are either not wp:sigcov or not reliable. The sources I could find like this, [22] are not wp:is. My bold guess after tagging the article in Oct 21 [23], is that the subject is not notable. — hako9 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet GNG. No significant coverage. Photo seems to be copyvio. Created by a user who has been indef banned for abusing multiple accounts. Cowlibob (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Procedural Keep. This nomination was done by a sockpuppet and even after 2 relistings, there are no votes supporting deletion so I've closed this discussion as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nordmoll[edit]

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

WP:PROMO, not sufficient reliable sources provided in the article. Oliver Virk (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oliver Virk: Just to note on this and one or two other of your recent nominations, an article having insufficient sources is not grounds for deletion. An article should be deleted if it is not notable; ie if significant coverage in reliable, independent sources doesn't exist. You're expected to check whether they exist before nominating an article and your nominations don't seem to show that this has happened. GoldenRing (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a large retail complex, the activities of which are covered in detail in various media. It has a large area. I changed the article a little and added new information. К.Артём.1 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the sources in the article are just about adequate to confirm notability. Thparkth (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DatGuyTalkContribs 12:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 16 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sania Khan[edit]

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

Sadly, I do not see that this crime is remarkable enough for an article. TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing terribly notable, sad yes, but almost routine in the USA. Made a video the ex didn't like and then she was murdered and he took his own life. Posting a video online before dying isn't terribly notable these days. Life outside of her passing seems routine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Firstly, this was a highly notable case that put a spotlight on domestic abuse and the stigmatization of divorce in South Asian immigrant communities. Killings like this are not "routine" as stated in the previous comment. Secondly, I wish the nominator either 1) brought up the issue with the creator of the article or on the talk page or 2) used Template:Notability to draw attention to this and give editors a chance to improve it. Adding some context in the first paragraph about reactions to the killing of a well-known social media influencer and the conversations around the safety of South Asian women will easily establish notability for Wikipedia. Bringing it straight to AfD within 12 hours of it being created does not meet our best practices of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia:Collaboration first. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide sources showing it's been analyzed as such. That would really help the situation. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully you see they are in the many sources in the article, particularly at the end of the legacy section where there are NBC, Insider and Psychology Today. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - According to Wikipedia:Notability_(events),"Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." This case has been covered by multiple reliable sources both at the local, national, and international level, including but not limited to the Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Tribune MSNBC, TIME, and BBC. These sources connect Khan's murder to larger conversations surrounding domestic violence in South Asian Communities more broadly. Moreover, Wikipedia:Notability_(events) states that "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." Since the Death of Sania Khan is so recent it is difficult to say what the historical significance is yet; however, her death does meet general notability guidelines. The event had significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. While we may not be able to determine historical significance at this time, TIME[24], NBC [25], BBC [26], and other sources have reported on the current significance of Khan's TikTok videos and murder to larger conversations surrounding domestic violence and divorce in South Asian communities. Finally, I know that Wikipedia is not a news source. This article is not attempting to report routine news. The death of Sania Khan is not a "routine case," which should be obvious by the overwhelming coverage it has received compared to other incidences of domestic violence that do not get this level of coverage. CarCai (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this case received significant nationwide media coverage from reliable sources and is not by any means a "routine" death thanks to its exposing the stigma around talking about divorce in South Asian communities. XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 18:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Not only does this case demonstrate notability, but the article itself speaks to its notability in the first paragraph. If needed, perhaps more can be added to the "Legacy" section, but there is no basis to delete the article outright. The arguments for deleting appear to misinterpret this case as an isolated, insignificant news event. Mrmarciello14 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, agree with User:Fuzheado above that this case is highly notable and was well documented before, during, and after the death of the subject in reliable sources. Brings new understanding to the topic of divorce and domestic violence in South Asian communities in the US. KellyDoyle (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, agree with comments above. There are 22 sources on the article, which includes articles from local sources (WDEF, UTC News, Chicago Tribune), national sources (Miami Herald, ABC News, NBC News), and international sources (BBC, TIME, Dawn News, Vogue India, HuffPost). I added more details of the conversation surrounding her death and the section can easily be expanded (e.g. with specific social media posts). The social media conversation, as can be seen from the sources, was not limited to the US, but also included commentary from civilians, journalists, and celebrities in India and Pakistan as well. I will continue adding sources to the legacy section as I find them. Compsognathusenthusiast (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move and rescope. Withdrawing to move and rescope. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian Institute of American Football[edit]

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

Speedy renomination after no-consensus close.

Arguments for keep in previous AfD were weak, and sources produced were unreliable, trivial, or both. As I said in the previous AfD, I would be fine with a redirect to IFAF Africa or other suitable target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and Nigeria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move and rescope to American football in Nigeria. The NIAF is the governing body for American football in Nigeria, and, as established in the AfD that just closed, the topic of American football in Nigeria is clearly notable. If there were another umbrella title for "American football in Nigeria" or "Gridiron football in Nigeria", I would be fine with a move. As it stands, this is the only article that covers the topic. The key point is that the content is notable, whether we keep the article under the umbrella of the national governing body or move it to a more comprehensive title like American football in Nigeria. 15:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • No one is arguing that the topic of American football in Nigeria is not notable. This AfD is for an organization governing American football in Nigeria; although related, they are separate topics. It would help keep this discussion clear for new participants if arguments were limited to the notability of the Nigerian Institute of American Football. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For the reasons above, and the fact there is substantial content now on the page compared to when it was first nominated. To comment on renaming the article something like American football in Nigeria, if you search on Wikipedia "American football in France" you get a national team like this article is. Searching as well for "American football in Spain" you get another national team, again, like this article. This is the national American Football team of Nigeria, and I believe that still has notability as discussed in the last nomination. Renaming would not make sense as of now because there currently exists no overarching American Football in country series. Johnson524 (Talk!) 15:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
American football in Nigeria is currently a redirect to this article. IMO it makes more sense for the redirect to operate in reverse as American football in Nigeria is the broader (and more clearly notable) topic. Also, Nigeria national American football team is simply a redirect to this article which could likewise be redirected to American football in Nigeria. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the name is better and more clearly shows notability, and I would be all for it if a broader series could be established, but as far as I am aware there doesn't exist an "American Football in country" article series, meaning Nigeria would be the only article covering this topic that is not named after the nations national football team. Johnson524 (Talk!) 15:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the last discussion, the "substantial content" on the page is based on unreliable sources that do not support a claim to notability for the topic of the Nigerian Institute of American Football. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article, which has grown to cover a broader range of American football in the nation, does not need to be deleted and clearly has room for expansion, as seen by the recent edits from @Cbl62 creating a notable players section. If renaming the article to American football in Nigeria better reflects the content of this article in the long run, then I would support that over the articles deletion when a good amount of coverage on the article still exists. Johnson524 (Talk!) 16:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: Do you agree that American football in Nigeria is notable? Do you oppose moving to that topic? Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current state of sourcing in the article is still terrible, but I'm far more willing to accept the argument that the general topic is likely to have sources. A move and rescope is acceptable, although if we do move it, the unreliable sourcing should be removed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good deal. I'm adjusting my vote to "move and rescope" as I do think that's the best outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Ring[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - could not find any news coverage of her; the Yahoo link is a one-line repost of a video and the Globe and Mail article doesn't mention her at all. (The fact that female and minority creators tend to be relegated by media to aggregation/sponcon/type work instead of being given editorial coverage is a longstanding and frustrating problem, but it does result in that coverage not existing.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, it's bias, which we're trying to combat on Wiki. But, no sources is no sources, we can't do the research ourselves, so here we are. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems there's a WWF wrestler with the same name. This individual isn't notable, sources are basically her bio in an art gallery and sources close to her. Nothing on the Getty ULAN database. Even limiting it to Canadian sources, not much turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. No significant coverage or exhibits. WP:PROMO. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject of this article does not pass WP notability guidelines for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. I agree with the nom and editors above that the article should be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - classic spam for which is not our thing, filled with laudatory words, yet lacking coverage in reliable sources. In 2007, this could be excused, but in 2022, everyone knows we are not a free web host for "unique" artists. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 23 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Kogan[edit]

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

Not passing WP:ANYBIO; deputies of the banks are not notable. looks like advertisement. WP:PROMO, cross-wiki spam. Russian Wikipedia is marked as Undisclosed paid editing and is being AfDed https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Oliver Virk (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG and looks like an advert. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with analysis above, paid editing is a concern. Oaktree b (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pass WP:GNG. The person made Nordea Bank Russia the most reliable in Russia. In addition, he developed the legal framework for the Credit Bureau, which is an integral part of the Russian financial market. He also made a significant contribution to the work of Aeroflot. All this is confirmed by publications in independent media. In Russian Wikipedia, as far as I can see, the article was also removed from deletion as significant. The result was challenged not for reasons of significance, but because of a possible internal conflict. ЖуковАФ (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the person is notable. The conclusion follows from the section about Nordea Bank (during the Kogan period: Nordea Bank had become the most stable bank in Russia by Forbes magazine rating; Nordea Bank’s position in Forbes Top 20 banking list of Russia, etc). Many authoritative sources are presented. But I recommend edit the article more so that it does not look like an advertisement. 94.25.174.126 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 13:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What a hot mess of spam and in 2022, everyone knows we are not a free web host. You can't just slap up random citations and extravagant claims now like folks did in 2007. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I was not able to find any significant coverage, the only sources available were Kogan being quoted by media outlets, not actually being covered by them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of films set in or about North Korea[edit]

List of films set in or about North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is somewhat "cool" list, if mostly unreferenced (and listing many seemingly non-notable documentaries) but even after cleanup I am afraid it fails WP:NLIST. My BEFORE found many sources about Cinema of North Korea, but nothing about foreign films about North Korea (as a group). The broad scope of this list is a problem, as it presumably should also include North Korean films set in North Korea (currently partially covered in the List of North Korean films). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usono[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation page with two entries. The first, if it were on its own as a redirect, would fail WP:FORRED; similarly, it isn't the job of disambiguation pages to translate arbitrary non-English terms to English.That leaves the other entry which, if worthwhile to have on Wikipedia at all, should be a redirect, as we can't have a disambiguation page with one entry. Also, I don't know if this is relevant, but "US ONO" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Ontario, Oregon article. Largoplazo (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Now I see the page was originally a redirect to United States. If I'd seen it then, I'd have submitted it to Rfd for WP:FORRED. Largoplazo (talk) 11:39, 16 September 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 Matt Forbeck. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fastbreak (card game)[edit]

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

Previous contested PROD, obviously fails WP:GNG. There's a long discussion here, pinging participants User:Piotrus and User:Leitmotiv. Even if we assume WP:AGF that the Scrye guide, which just runs two pages, is a proper review per Leitmotiv, which there's scarce evidence, we have just one ref. The discussion had an agreement that ref 1, The Official Price Guide, is non-SIGCOV as it's too short, nor is ref 3's trivial 1-sentence coverage. So, IMHO this should be deleted, as there's no decent merge/redirect target, only option would to be redirect/merge to the designer. VickKiang (talk) 08:20, 16 September 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 Tehreek-e-Soutul Awliya. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rashid Dawoodi[edit]

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

The page has references from YouTube. Also this article is of the person who is not followed by many. References of not known sources is against the Wikipedia guidelines. A man born in India is denouncing something of the country which is ten thousand miles away from him, is just for publicity which has nothing to do with his religious thoughts. Also this person is uneducated and therefore has is a layman just like others. If Wikipedia will start writing articles of such persons then every ones' page will be in Wikipedia. It is therefore highly recommended for speedy deflection. he is totally ignorant having no knowledge of religion, moreover he has very few followers that too for minting money from them, so he don't deserve to be on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabirpaswal (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 September 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 September 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't necessarily think this person meets notability guidelines, but even if he did the article itself is a mess that would need serious work to bring it up to snuff. It looks like the personal project of just one or two editors beefing up the number of references by linking the exact same news stories literally dozens of times. Peribirb (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Brief mentions of his arrest in the Hindu Times and a few other sites, nothing we can use for notability here. Might be found in the local language? Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing in Kashmiri language and I did not find anything useful in Urdu language either. This scholar has a local type of notability for defo, but we need significant coverage in reliable and independent sources over a brief period of time. Despite the nomination being a bad one (I consider it, and feel some lines from the nom should be redacted as they indicate abuse and vilification) but nonetheless notability isn't demonstrated. I'd prefer delete but wouldn't disagree with redirecting it to Tehreek-e-Soutul Awliya of which the subject is founder. Regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Upon checking the sources, I don't find any good coverage that stands for a separate article of this subject. The better ATD is redirection to Tehreek-e-Soutul Awliya.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 08:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:09, 23 September 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 Taurus–Littrow. Consensus not to have the article. Reasonable of redirect established when challenged. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brontë (lunar crater)[edit]

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

Extremely minor lunar crater of only 210 metres in diameter, was encountered by Apollo 17 astronauts but was not the subject of any special attention besides being named as a result of that. There does not appear to be any scientific studies on it that would cause it to pass WP:GNG, a search on Google Scholar only brought up results for the Mercurian crater of the same name, which is far more prominent. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The crater's name is recognized by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). That should make it notable. It is also briefly mentioned briefly in the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report. And in contrast to the Mercurian crater, humans have been there. Jstuby (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NASTRO specifically says that being named by the IAU does not confer notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For further evidence, take Naturaliste, Jessica, Fejokoo etc. It is pretty clear that being named by the IAU isn't considered proof of notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Taurus–Littrow article, where it is listed. Possibly that list could be turned into a table to show the crater diameters. Praemonitus (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not opposed to a redirect but it seems an unlikely search term with the added disambiguation. WaggersTALK 13:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Govinda (2002 film)[edit]

Gautam Govinda (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "take it to AFD" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete well, it has been brought to AfD. No sources is no sources, delete please. I find nothing to support keeping it, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. There seems to be books trivially discussing Gautam Govinda (1, 2) a 1979 film of the same name, though other than this trivial mention, there are no significant RS at all for this film per my WP:BEFORE search. As current refs are databases, I prefer deletion for this one. VickKiang 03:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_September_16&oldid=1111966110"