Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 18	September 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Mavrakis[edit]

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

SPA creation for whom I cannot find any evidence of notability as an actor. Likely 2013 copypasta but I cannot find the source. Note: he is not the NASA scientist for whom there is sourcing Star Mississippi 23:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Syria, and Greece. Star Mississippi 23:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search found neither GNG-qualifying coverage nor evidence that WP:NACTOR is met. I'd be glad to reconsider if there are Greek-language sources that I'm missing (I didn't find any, but my non-Latin-script searching skills aren't particularly good), but otherwise he doesn't appear to be notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no in-depth coverage by RS in Greek. Seems to be a purely promotional article by a SPA (who, by the way, created the Greek article, as well). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 16:28, 26 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. Consideration of a possible article rename should occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maharani Kishori[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASIC, isn't notable as they're the wife of someone who was a ruler. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Royalty and nobility. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could not find any source to substantiate notability. VV 09:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: found a couple of schools named for her, and one of their websites says "She is a symbol of pride for the local populace. She was a source of inspiration for the Maharaja Surajmal and had played an active role in administration of state. Maharani Kishori had played an important role in running the administration of Bharatpur state. She played the role of patron to the Bharatpur state for three generation even after Maharaja Surajmal." PamD 07:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are at least three sources covering a person from 18th century, then this person is notable without any doubt. That's the case with subject here. Also per PamD. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:PamD but rename to Kishori (Maharani). She was a powerful Maharani, not a British Raj Maharani consort. Thanks User:PamD for expanding the article. Nice work!. Cheer Taung Tan (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having a school named after you isn't really advancing the case for notability here. Not saying it shouldn't be taken into account but there needs to be more than just that. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And more than just that has already been demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are many school and colleges can be found in the name of Kishori. Artile can be moved as suggested by Taung Tan.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 08:14, 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!} 23:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Poelman[edit]

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

No claim to notability, and no sources turn up on a search. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A computer scientist who is an amateur in music performance and a professional in composition, apparently as a side business. Must be musically passionate and talented! Some international passing mentions verify the information he has shared with us, however, no WP:SIGCOV makes him not sufficiently notable for a WP article. gidonb (talk) 15:44, 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 merge to Mental illness portrayed in media. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romanticization of mental illness in media[edit]

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

Topic has heavy overlap with Mental illness portrayed in media. Should be merged to that one. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Film, Popular culture, and Psychology. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mental illness portrayed in media. The two articles will make one good strong article, they cover areas that the other doesn't. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Psychiatry. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mental illness portrayed in media. Neither article is large enough that a split between the two very similar topics is warranted, and it makes sense to include this content within the more topic with a (slightly) broader scope. - Aoidh (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mental illness portrayed in media. I don't see an issue with the resulting article being WP:TOOBIG and this is a clear subtopic of the proposed merge target. As such, a merge seems to be optimal in light of WP:NOPAGE; this is one of those times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a WP:CONTENTFORK of Mental illness portrayed in media. WP:NPOV should present these different portrayals together in proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - As it currently stands this reads more like a TV Tropes page, listing off random examples of a phenomenon, but I can easily see this subject warranting its own standalone article given appropriate sourcing and structuring. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The World Intellectuals[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a film series, with no discernible claim to passing WP:NFO. The only notability claim on offer here is that the series exists, and overall the article seems much more concerned with coatracking some POV opinions about the life and work of one of the films' subjects than it does with talking about the film about him as a film, and even on a Google search I can't find any reliable source coverage about the series -- it isn't even listed in the director's IMDb profile, in fact, and other than wikimirrors his own self-published website about himself is the only thing I could find that connected him to any film of this title at all.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Iranian media coverage can find some actual sourcing to upgrade this with, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 21:52, 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!} 21:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm somewhat reluctant to vote on foreign language topics, and the title makes it especially hard to search for, but a search for '"The World Intellectuals" Shoolizadeh' turns up not a lick of coverage indicative of notability in the usual places. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously, part of a bundled AFD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Land, Five Nations and was Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, GNG is not met. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 26 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. Consensus is that the subject meets notability standards. Per the discussion herein, I am adding the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Taylor (author)[edit]

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for no original research and does not meet WP:BIO Additionally, the content is advertising for self-published material and non-reviewed research. Secondary sources are not verifiable and express the author's opinions (interviews). Statements on secondary sources are not verified by newspapers. The article is not neutral. It advocates for the author's viewpoint and includes personal opinions. Doesn’t meet additional WP:BIO criteria for academics and victims of crime. Other editors have pointed out problems with guidelines, view history and discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliciaesf (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TNT, Keep seems an option. I found this [1], Independent which is a reliable source, most are from tabloids. There are some in the article we can use, but wow, this is a mess. Might fall under AUTHOR, one review here [2], there in the Irish Examiner [3], and the Guardian [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of independent sources about her as well as the book she is essentially famous for. One thing, though: some of the sources refer to her as "Jessica Eaton". I'm pretty sure it's her because of the photos. The article doesn't explain this and it is confusing. I looked at other sources and I'm still quite confused. Can anyone clear that up? Also, I'd call her (psychologist) or something rather than author. Being an author is a sideline, AFAIK. As for policy, I'd opt for GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep Her books are badly researched and perpetuate naratives that can not be proved. Basically copy/pasta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:CE8:127:1EC9:412C:BE50:D40D:18B4 (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Properly sourced criticism, if added to the article, would only bolster notability. Unsourced negative opinions on a WP:BLP have no place on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 18 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!} 23:23, 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!} 21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of this article clearly meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing. That the article may need cleaning up is not a reason for deletion, WP:NOTCLEANUP, however the name issue should be resolved. Netherzone (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Has enough reliable coverage and articles about her. Skynxnex (talk) 17:34, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Search Committee, 2022[edit]

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

Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent sources about the committee to show it passes GNG. Lots of mentions, but it's a search committee and gets the type of limited coverage you would expect of such an organization, with very little lasting coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Bengali version of the article has 31 reliable sources that not only mentions about the committee but also explain its history and activities in detail. We have enough sources to expand the article. That's why I think the article can be kept. Also it will be better if the creator of the article @Owais Al Qarni: can expand and complete the article. Mehedi Abedin 13:19, 7 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!} 23:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bangladesh Election Commission.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mehedi Abedin.–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 07:39, 13 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!} 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mehedi Abedin. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 23:36, 26 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. Star Mississippi 01:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pradhaan Air Express[edit]

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

Too Early to create. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Delhi. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 30 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!} 22:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, aircraft already inducted. Article passes GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:08, 7 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, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources fail to meet the criteria given at WP:CORPDEPTH. Also a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. 4meter4 (talk) 08:14, 19 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!} 21:23, 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 merge to Byju's. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteHat Jr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Primary Investment News, and change in leadership news. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. While it might be possible that there are some reliable sources, the current article will still need to go. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:44, 3 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!} 22:44, 5 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!} 23:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources fail to meet the criteria given at WP:CORPDEPTH.4meter4 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Byju's, was one of its major startup acquisition. See this Quartz article for context. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider a Merge. The last AFD closure was a redirect from this page to Byju's but I see it was undone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Byju's: (selectively). Seems reasonable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZSNES[edit]

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

Was mentioned in the discussion of VisualBoyAdvance and this article also fails GNG as well. The Ars Technica article is just a trivial mention and the article has lacked WP:SIGCOV since its 2003 inception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Computing, and Software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep Searching for a few sources, submitting some for evaluation:
- Lifehacker: "ZSNES is the other big SNES emulator out there, and once upon a time was the go-to. These days, though, it’s considered old, outdated, and inaccurate—though it’s also said to have the lowest input lag of the bunch. Unfortunately, that comes with crackling sound issues, and significant bugs in some games." Tells some detail about ZSNES itself, namely that it has low input lag and crackling audio, also about its reception over time
- PC Mag (Feb. 2007): Mentions it being open-source, and its "best feature: two-player gaming over the Net. ZSNES can use hardware-accelerated graphics cards, so some games actually look better than they did on the original console."

— Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the ideal outcome would be to merge this to something like Super Nintendo emulation. Unfortunately, that article doesn't exist...although it certainly could given the amount that's been written about it (in RS even), often comparing and contrasting specific emulators. And frankly, the other SNES emulators which have standalone articles could stand to be merged in as well. But, of course, someone has to do all of that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that such a page would be pretty worthwhile. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, this concept exists in Wikibooks, albiet in stub form wikibooks:Emulation/SNES. Mbrickn (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources like Retro Gamer and Ars Technica establish notability. The latter is not a trivial mention, as the article explicitly compares ZSNES to bsnes (now known as higan (emulator)). Axem Titanium (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources Mellohi! found, there's also a pretty significant mention in GROUP TEST. By: Hayward, David, Micro Mart, 14730251, Jul2013, Issue 1267, with ~7 paragraphs about it: ZSNES is by far the most unpleasant-looking emulator in this group, but what it lacks in beauty it makes up for with a simple, uncluttered, interface and superb quality, with its ability to emulate the more complicated and complex SNES hardware features, such as the SuperFX co-processor chip ... . There are also some other excellent features ... . Skynxnex (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job finding that in-depth Micro Mart review, Skynxnex! — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources mentioned by other editors (PC Mag and Ars Technica) are sufficient for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:37, 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 keep but potentially rescope/target. There is consensus that a merger isn't appropriate due to the difference in time periods, but also appears to be consensus that the content needs changing, which can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Dai (Ming dynasty)[edit]

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

Article is mostly a list of people who held the title while there is an entire article on this same topic see Prince of Dai. Merging the two articles would be the best use of resources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was sent to draft and user just recreated it in main space. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on imperial Chinese nobility, but it looks to me like this article and Prince of Dai are about different topics. Prince of Dai seems to be about rulers of the state of Dai and related entities (c. 300 BCE to 300 CE). Prince of Dai (Ming dynasty) is about one of many princely peerages during the Ming dynasty (1368 to 1644 CE). It's not obvious to me that these articles about different ranks from different kingdoms 1000+ years apart should be merged. So I'd say keep unless a better reason for deletion is provided. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mx. Granger. Two different topics. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any reason to not merge these articles? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, they seem to be different ranks used in different kingdoms 1000+ years apart. Why would we merge them? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only suggested it because the Prince of Dai article had a partial list, I'm kinda stabbing in the dark here. I figured it might make sense to make an article that is a list of people who held the title Prince of Dai and then make the Prince of Dai article talk about the history and meaning of the title. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure -- We have an article on every British peerage and baronetcy, except where the first holder was the last. I do not see why we should not have the like on Chinese titles. Restructure, using the British peerage articles as a model. No objection to merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron makes a really good point and I have no idea why I didn't think of it. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide whether or not to Merge two articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A historical princedom, held by many princes, making titile holder the ruler of a territory (Datong). Taung Tan (talk) 17:11, 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 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorasak Kaewinta[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Searches in Thai came back with trivial coverage such as passing mentions in Super Sub Thailand and Siamrath. I did find an article about him in Smmsport but it's only a sentence long and clearly not enough for GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:58, 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 redirect to Suscipe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These Alone Are Enough[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search yielded no independent material for this hymn outside lyrics appears on lyric hosting sites; potentially a candidate for delete-and-merge to Suscipe. Pbritti (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Christianity. Pbritti (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the hymn is reasonably extensively described at Suscipe, I think a Redirect is appropriate. Jahaza (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suscipe, who wrote the song. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:44, 17 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!} 20:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suscipe, the comparatively well-known text, where several musical settings are noted. Rutsq (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suscipe where it is already covered, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 24 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. The only "keep" argument is "Enough blue links to make it a valid list", but none of our inclusion criteria for lists depend on the number of blue links in them. Sandstein 19:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about kites[edit]

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

Non-notable topic for a list and is too broad for a Wikipedia list. Gabe114 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Lists. Gabe114 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for people's consideration on prior discussions: This page was deprodded in 2011 by Mike Cline, which lead to the discussion in Talk:List of books about kites#Notability of List of books about kites. Additional pings to those previously involved: GraemeLeggett, The Bushranger, Petebutt. - 2pou (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One can search for thousands of books on any arbitrary concept in any library's card catalogue or Google Books. Wikipedia is not the place to compile mere titles and authors with no inclusion criteria for such non-notable titles or explanation why they go here. Kite and related articles also covered in this list like Paragliding or Airborne wind energy could have further reading sections for relevant books not already cited, and Kite#External_links could incorporate List_of_books_about_kites#Specialized_kite_book_lists, but there is no use for this sort of indiscriminate or overly broad stand-alone page. Reywas92^Talk 18:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Couldn't this just be served by a category along the lines of Category:Kites in fiction? That would have the extra benefit of allowing other forms of media to be added. There wouldn't be many pages on the list since it would have to play a major part in the work in question, but it could be a potential solution. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's already the category Category:Books about kite flying and Category:Works about kite flying, so a new category is unnecessary. I think these categories are really all we need. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm fairly certain Kites in fiction would be a viable article, and the categories are useful for navigation. I don't see how the list is in any viable, given how common the image is; I found no evidence that the list is notable in any way. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough blue links to make it a valid list, just remove the majority of entries which are not notable. Dream Focus 15:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. 13 valid entries, most with links to their own articles, some just linking to a notable writer. Dream Focus 15:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a million topics that novels or picture books, including notable ones, may include as a subject or theme, but that doesn't mean there needs to be an article listing them without context because blue links exist. There's Kite#In_popular_culture that could include a few but this page doesn't seem warranted even with the non-notable books removed. Reywas92^Talk 17:47, 19 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!} 20:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As mentioned above, this could easily become a category (e.g., Category:Fictional books about kites) or prose-ified to add particularly notable entries to Kites#In Popular Culture. Unfortunately, I also did a gander at the sources and none of them support the list's actual content (at least the new, edited version). I see this article ending up like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cookbooks. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps WP:DAFT? Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:14, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo Sung-joo[edit]

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

Bit part actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage, annoucements, PR, interviews. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appeared in a supporting role in Squid Game, The Silent Sea and Poong, the Joseon Psychiatrist. Gray eyes (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure his role in mentioned films by Gray eyes were supporting roles! if so my comment is Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassimela (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage. also there is no major roles in notable films. Fabiobengario (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is a bit part actor who has been in two series with a ensemble cast and that is as much as you can say about it. With his latest series he has been cast back to about 17th. He is bit part actor. scope_creep^Talk 07:05, 14 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!} 20:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oppose keep, this clearly fails WP:GNG, with routine releases and interviews that aren't meeting WP:SIGCOV. Similarly, WP:NACTOR is failed, the criteria states that the actor [has] had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions is required- how are supporting roles significant? VickKiang 07:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and pass WP:GNG and remain in wikipedia --不和の林檎 (talk) 07:45, 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 merge to Safeway Inc.. Star Mississippi 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andronico's[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Notability is not proven by Google and available sources inside the page. 多少战场龙 (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was created in 2006 and has valid references. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is near and dear to my heart, but I'm not seeing enough for wp:CORP. The sources are all about a sale of the company and its stores, but I don't see what makes that Notable. The company would need to be notable beyond this business event, but it doesn't seem to be. The one general article is in "Supermarket News" but the upbeat news it gives turned out to have shortly ended up in failure. Lamona (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete agree with above, the sources talk about it, but it's all rather routine stuff. Could maybe merge some stuff into the Safeway article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Safeway Inc. Even if it does not seem likely that non-routine coverage will be found, its relationship with Safeway occurring over several years seems mention-worthy over there. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:10, 19 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!} 20:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Safeway Inc., which presently has no mention of Andronico's or its acquisition of remaining Andronico's stores. This would improve the merge target article (WP:ATD-M) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 26 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. Noting that a draft for the article exists that may be submitted in the usual way in due course. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope's Exorcist[edit]

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

Pope's Exorcist

Teaser stub about unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability or general notability. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability. This stub does not say that production has happened, let alone that it was notable. The references are either teasers saying that there will be a film, or are about or by the late person that the movie is about.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	imdb.com	IMDB summary of movie	Yes	No	No	No
2	msn.com	Announcement of planned film	Yes	No	Yes	No
3	abcnews.com	An interview with the real-life exorcist	Yes	Not about the film	Yes	Yes, but not about the film
4	worldcat.org	Listing of a book by the real-life exorcist	Yes	Not about the film	Yes	No
5	worldcat.org	Listing of another book by the real-life exorcist	Yes	Not about the film	Yes	No

The notability of Gabriele Amorth is not in dispute; we already have an article about him. This stub says nothing about the film except that it doesn't yet exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Film, Christianity, Italy, and Australia. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is also a draft on this film. The draft has more information than this article. I recommend that this article be deleted, and the draft be kept, and resubmitted when the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks for checking for drafts, Robert McClenon, and I think that plan is the best course of action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to User:Pbritti - I wasn't really checking for drafts. I was checking for articles, because I was primarily reviewing drafts. You're welcome anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Andre🚐 20:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here yet. Manannan67 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Appears to be case of WP:TOOSOON. Plus, as noted above, a draft for the article already exists. Sal2100 (talk) 18:56, 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 22:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Entwisle[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Only "source" originally offered was user-generated IMDB which has her only down for two roles, neither appearing notable or significant. De-PRODed without explanation or improvements made. Searches just return her being associated with broadcasts of the respective films as a credit without any WP:SIGCOV. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are confirmation she was in the movie. Nothing found in GNews, GSearch or GNewspapers. She was in the movie, yes, but appears to have had a minor part then never acted again? Very long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, only two roles in 1997 and is married to the director and writer of one of them. 5Q5|^✉ 12:20, 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 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!} 23:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Pigeon[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a film series, not reliably sourcing any serious claim to passing WP:NFO. This makes no serious notability claim besides being a thing that exists, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability with absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy media coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Senegal. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero sourcing for this film series(?). All I get are Mad Max or people that had encounters with unsavory pigeons/feathered objects that attack them for some reason or another. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engagement (film)[edit]

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

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for films. This makes absolutely no notability claim at all besides purportedly existing; at the time of its creation in 2006, it tried for "won an award at a minor film festival", but that got removed within two days as it wasn't verified by the source that had been used to support it, and has never returned since.
The only footnote here is its own deadlinked self-published website about itself, with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage about the film in any WP:GNG-worthy sources shown at all. And for added bonus, I can't find any media coverage, or even an IMDb profile, on Google -- literally all I can find is this primary source staff profile and a bunch of wikimirrors.
There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Africa. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear-cut delete, as per the above. Greenman (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Same reason stated by Bearcat why it’s been AFD.--Gabriel^t@lk 21:23, 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 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, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those Who Wander[edit]

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

Article about an unreleased film, not properly sourced as having any serious claim to passing our notability criteria for films. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it has an IMDb page -- the notability test isn't just that the film exists, but that the film has been the subject of media coverage to establish its significance. But this is a crowdfunded independent film that never saw any real commercial distribution at all -- it received one self-funded screening at a theatre not very far away from the filmmaker's own hometown, and that's it.
And for sourcing, 13 of the 17 footnotes here are primary sources (Facebook, Twitter, Craigslist, YouTube, user-generated discussion boards, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all -- and of the just four hits that are from real media, they're all just "local film student tries to make film" in the filmmaker's own local media, not adding up to any reason why this otherwise unreleased film would have any enduring nationalized or internationalized significance seven years later.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more than just a tiny smattering of coverage in and around the filmmaker's own hometown. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no other article to redirect this to. The Film Creator (talk) 12:20, 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 restored. Star Mississippi 01:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackleg[edit]

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

A one liner, unreferenced, definition. Should be deleted per WP:NOTDICT Mr.weedle (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore redirect. PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rustytrombone (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it should be clear that this should just be a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry and that the text was added in by an IP editor that must've not understood the page. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. One sentence, no sources, a definition. If it is indeed a real word it should be added to Wikitionary instead. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is on wiktionary and it's a redirect to wikt... PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with simply restoring the redirect to wikt. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:30, 26 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 22:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Abdulnaser[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:ATHLETE Mr.weedle (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mr.weedle (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Qatar, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found some Arabic coverage of a very similarly named player (.e.g Kora Gold) but the coverage isn't significant anyway. The Qatari/Syrian player of this name doesn't seem to be someone that people have taken note of. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love Shines (2019 song)[edit]

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

See WP:NSONG. Song has not appeared on any charts, written and performed by musicians that are not notable. 162 etc. (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable song. Would be willing to revisit if there are more domestic language RS, I can't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't expect. Almost all of the WP:RS about topics in the Philippines on the internet are in English. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable song, check the sources of Star ng Pasko, Ikaw ang Liwanag at Ligaya, Andito Tayo Para sa Isa't Isa, etc. The sources mentioned there that mentioned by the nominator is not present and they were just leaved as is. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, those songs (esp. the last two) may end up being deleted also. 162 etc. (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS. Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 23:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable holiday image campaign song. We've usually deleted image campaigns and songs for Western networks so that consensus must carry through here. The other three 'it's notable!' articles need to go too and I'd support their deletion; to put it kindly, the sources for these are all PR (or sourced to ABS-CBN itself) which only exist to needle on the pointlessness that is Filipino television network rivalries. Nate • (chatter) 01:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The last source on the article that mentions the trend of the song, was that not enough? The source was in Tagalog. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't discriminate WP:RS by language, but WP:NSONGS is paramount here; even if we include that in the article, it still is a stub and is unlikely to grow. WP:GNG is relevant and it doesn't even pass that. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a press release disguised as an article which cherry-picks positive reviews about the song from social media. This line especially...

“You can feel GMA’s sincerity in reaching out to the needy. It is not only for publicity or ratings, they truly wanted to make a difference. And their artists reflect the values they hold dearly. Kapuso forever!”

They could donate money, but like the folks involved with "Do They Know It's Christmas?" who forget the people they sing about have access to calendars and know the concept of a year, they instead choose to just release a vague feel-good holiday song like every other network in the Christian world does during the holidays. There's no critical commentary about the song in the article. "Kapuso forever" is a reference to their slogan, again a part of the 'network rivalries' most normal people don't care about. This isn't a proper source in the least. And yes, I'm sure money from selling the track digitally/streaming it went to proper charities, but that's a small pool of people who actually will. Nate • (chatter) 17:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSONGS. All sources say relatively the same thing about the song, and it's not much. Also, it looks like some information in Concept was copied and pasted. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andito Tayo Para sa Isa't Isa: This song is a "full-length production but appears to have been created for purely promotional or charity purposes", and such networks' christmas songs are released yearly. Both of these reasons fail WP:NSONG. Chompy Ace 21:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:NSONG. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:35, 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 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, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avani Institute of Design[edit]

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

Sources found on Google News are either press releases, unreliable, insignificant coverage, etc. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not notable, nor RS are there. There are some news in Google search however they are not sufficient. --Assirian cat (talk) 10:23, 25 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. Consensus is delete by strength of argument. The only source presented is not reliable, and whether it is of any use for the current topic is shaky. If this is truly an actual settlement verifiable by reliable sources, an article of equal length could be built with little additional volunteer effort. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uskut, Kashmir[edit]

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

WP:HOAX. The already dubious references cited in the article do not mention the supposed village at all, nor am I able to find a single source/RS which even mentions it. The statement "It is unknown if Uskut is now under Pakistani administration. The Delhi based SIA conducted raids on Uskut and Uri because both of the villages were under militant control." is also a blatant hoax by the creator of this article, who has already created hoax articles on other wikis (e.g. simplewiki). Gotitbro (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Jammu and Kashmir. Gotitbro (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wareon (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - The source indicates that there is a village across the LoC which is called Uskut. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only source in the article now is this dubious one and nowhere is Uskut mentioned there. If this village existed there would be census or geographical records of it, none exist. Gotitbro (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions Ushkur, the ancient Buddhist site near the village. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have not read it, it does not; and even if it did mention it (the ancient site), that will not prove the existence of this modern village. Besides it is a blog, i.e., not WP:RS and still not seeing a single census or geographical source for the existence of this village. Gotitbro (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to draft and will not be back into the main page unless more improvements on the article. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note the article has been moved to Draft:Uskut, Kashmir during the AfD. Venkat TL (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article back to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz why? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhafiz-e-Pakistan first you should explain Why you moved it Special:Diff/1108615873/1110150191. Liz has given the reason in edit summary Special:Diff/1110150311/1110874672. Venkat TL (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry I didn't know, I thought you can move it. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL Also I wrote, "Nominated for Deletion". Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhafiz-e-Pakistan read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and focus on fixing the problems pointed above. If you want it to be draftified, make a comment here with reason. An admin will move it if you have a convincing reason. Dont move it yourself. Venkat TL (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL I did, see above. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 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 redirect to Tarand (animal). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parandrus[edit]

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

It appears there was a previous discussion to merge this page with Tarand (animal). I am bringing this back to the attention of other editors, as both seem to be variations on the same creature (mythical or otherwise). It may be necessary to delete this page and merge any notable material to the Tarand page, maintaining a redirect if necessary (likely). Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Mythology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tarand (animal), of which it seems clear that this is an alternative name. The information in this article is already in Tarand (animal), so not really anything that needs merging. Not sure why this needed to go through AfD, to be honest. Ingratis (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tarand (animal). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Redirect to Tarand (animal). This article adds nothing to that one worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tarand (animal) obviously. Atighot (talk) 21:11, 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 merge to Merman#Folklore elsewhere. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaijin (folklore)[edit]

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

The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Delete entirely TNstingray (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Merman#Folklore elsewhere, which should probably have a better section title. Dekimasuよ! 14:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Merman per Dekimasu. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Merman as suggested above. The only two sources are in Japanese, no mention of further coverage.--Auric talk 22:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be in English. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 26 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 Grizzly bear. If an entity is considered by science to be a cryptid, we need sources discussing it as a cryptid; otherwise we risk spreading pseudoscience. As such I'm inclined to give very early sources much less weight, and consensus is against a standalone article even otherwise. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MacFarlane's bear[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of this page is entirely unsourced, with the only source being a general study into the variations of North American bears, and this is not explicitly connected to the subject matter of MacFarlane's bear. Delete entirely, though a redirect could be maintained to List of individual bears if necessary. TNstingray (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no sources found in GScholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grizzly bear. This is a single source description of a subspecies that was invalidated later (good luck digging up an online copy of the 100 year-old original: Merriam, Clinton H. 1918. Review of the grizzly and big brown bears of North America (genus Ursus). North American Fauna 41: 1-136). This happens all the time, and if we dignified each instance with an article then we would have 86 articles for the brown bear alone. For that species, the post-genetics winnowing down to the current state is succinctly stated in one paragraph at Grizzly_bear#Ursus_arctos. That's all the coverage it should merit. If people think that "Monster Quest" (by golly) and this demand extra mention, then by all means add one sentence there. But definitely no separate article required. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: Original description of Vetulartctos at BHL. I've been operating under the assumption that BHL probably doesn't have original descriptions for most species, and thus I don't usually bother to search there. I'm rethinking that. 3 times now in the past 2 days I've searched BHL for an original description they've had it every time. If the original description is old enough to be out of copyright, it's worth checking BHL. Plantdrew (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice resource - wasn't aware of it! Thanks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grizzly bear - Per Elmidae's comments. Pahiy (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be covered in a number of books, for example https://archive.org/details/cryptozoologytoz00lore/page/146/mode/1up, https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-787/page/n261/mode/1up and https://archive.org/details/livesofgameanima0002seto/page/113/mode/1up Piecesofuk (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that enough to warrant its own article though? TNstingray (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't know, there are more books out there. It was also featured in the Guinness Book of World Records as "Rarest Bear" Piecesofuk (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Of course I will defer to consensus, but is it more encyclopedically valuable to have this one-off stub, or include this information somewhere else (as seems to be the general trend)? Note: Guinness falls under WP:MREL, meaning it could go either way. TNstingray (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Entries in Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology (ABC-CLIO and Cryptozoology A To Z (Simon & Schuster). Old, but still contributing to GNG coverage is found in Lives of Game Animals (by Ernest Thompson Seton, 1926), and Review of the Grizzly and Big Brown Bears of North America (by Clinton Hart Merriam, 1918). I'd normally think that adds up to GNG, but I'm not quite ready to !vote. The complete lack of coverage between the early 20th and early 21st centuries is confusing to me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this 2011 news article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam 1918 is the original description, so that's kind of out of the running. Of course, if you want to go farther back, there is also the travel report that prompted Merriam to make the description (Maire and MacFarlane 1908, "Through the Mackenzie Basin"), but I would consider that the same instance. In essence it's about whether the various minor 21st century crytozoology churns add up to notability, on which opinion may differ. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why Seton 1926 is completely out of the running? And surely if we were to redirect to Grizzly bear, a mention would need to be added there? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't read that one apart from the TOC entry, I'm afraid...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I hadn't read this far down before I posted the link to Merriam via BHL above. The link to Merriam via Google Books goes to a page for Ursus macfarlani, not the page for Vetularctos. Merriam gives U. macfarlani the vernacular name "MacFarlane Bear", which I'd say is ambiguous wiht "MacFarlane's bear". Where did the title for this undersourced article come from? Plantdrew (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the initial version of the article is a COPYVIO of Cryptozoology A-Z. Multiple sentences are copied in full, with one unnecessary word added to Wikipedia's version. (note: Eddie891 also provided a link to this book above; Eddie891's link shows page 147 but not 146, my link shows 146 but not 147). Plantdrew (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily for long standing (16 year) copyright violations. This is a essentially a non-entity taxonomically (but the scientific name redirects Ursus inopinatus and Vetularctos inopinatus can be retargetted to grizzly bear and tagged with {{R from alternative scientific name}}). If there's any notability, it is due to recent interest from the cryptozoology commmunity; I'm not sure exactly what the notability standards are for cryptids, but I do know that most cryptids nominated at AfD don't survive it.

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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 22:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Imaginary Beings[edit]

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

This page does not currently justify its own existence, with the only sources being the book itself and another primary source that might not actually support the claim, but instead be just another example of myths presented in a natural history fashion. This page needs to be deleted, though I can also understand an argument for blanking and redirecting to the original author. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Mythology, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am a bit surprised to see this Borges' book nominated: a book which also exists in English translation published in Penguin Classics. For the moment , before checking for further sources, I'll note there is a journal article (Nicholson, Melanie (2020). "Necessary and Unnecessary Monsters: Jorge Luis Borges's Book of Imaginary Beings". Journal of Modern Literature. 43 (2).) if anyone has Gale access to review it. AllyD (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 2012 article in The Guardian about Borges' book: [5] and about a further book inspired by the book in question here: [6]. The original 1969 New York Times review of the English version is also visible to subscribers, partially visible to the rest of us; it is described as "this elegant anthology": [7]. AllyD (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:BEFORE. GScholar finds multiple articles about this book in scholarly journals. e.g. [8][9][10] pburka (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book by a notable author. Retinalsummer (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK criterion 1, given the multiple reviews (NYT, Guardian) and journal articles mentioned above. And possibly also meets WP:NBOOK criterion 5. AllyD (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NBOOK as above, and NB #5, which Borges cannot fail to meet. Ingratis (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- very easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK (this is exactly what criterion 5 is designed for). Whether the page "currently justifies its own existence" is a matter of cleanup and a WP:BEFORE search, not notability. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Goodness, I was not intending to offend anybody. Based on my preliminary research, I did not see anything notable beyond the scope of the esteemed writer himself. Clearly I missed something, and I will take the time to refresh my knowledge of Wikipedia policy based on the links provided. Thank you. TNstingray (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No offense taken on my part. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets notability guidelines for books. Rustytrombone (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Speedy Keep. I've expanded the article to cover the reviews from The Guardian, New York Times, and Publishers Weekly, making it obviously passing WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria 1, in addition to the tons of scholarly articles which haven't been added yet. Gentle remainder for a WP:BEFORE search- even in the first few pages the Publishers Weekly and The Guardian reviews were already displayed. VickKiang 21:55, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Cello Christmas[edit]

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

The article is a single sentence for the lead ("A Cello Christmas is the fifth studio album by Tina Guo") and a track listing. Not shown to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I have only just created this article within the last two days and i have just expanded the lead with a new reference, so the above is now void. D Eaketts (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should probably add Template:Stub Suitskvarts (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just added the template D Eaketts (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Current sources, including those added since AfD launched, still do not cover notability whatsoever. Between the refs and external links you've got three databases (two of which are listed on WP:NOTRSMUSIC, the third should be on the same grounds) and two commerce sites that don't even list any information beyond some basic release facts. What sources I could find myself do not meet WP:SIGCOV. QuietHere (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found, Discogs isn't useful as a source for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in the slightest. TNstingray (talk) 13:00, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sfurti Sahare[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Uses largely promotional sources. This book review [11] in a click bait site and this brief discussion [12] are all the coverage she has. GNG and AUTHOR not met. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also created by a SPA with no edits outside of this topic. Last AfD was a !keep, but it was a stub and no significant sources have turned up since (and even then, sources were limited). Oaktree b (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The few citations are mostly to the Amazon retail site. No notability is shown. Appears to be purely promotional. Sorely fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than Sportskeeda none of the sources are reliable. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Atighot (talk) 21:06, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Bowman Presidents Card Set[edit]

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

Zero reliable sources to demonstrate how these meet general notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 6 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!} 08:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: entirely non-notable. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 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 delete. Policy-based opinions are uniformly in favor of deletion. A list needs a consistent definition for inclusion, and such has not been supplied. The concerns about original research have not been resolved. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-sovereign countries[edit]

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

There is no definition of a 'non-sovereign country'. Therefore such a list cannot exist, it is WP:OR. If there is a source that 'non-sovereign country' means dependent territory then I could redirect there. Privybst (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shortly after this list's creation, issues with it were raised on Talk:List of non-sovereign countries. They remain unresolved. Put simply, this list is a WP:SYNTH compilation of vastly different entities based on finding particular semantics in a source. (Two different semantics since "nations" were added to the list and are apparently different.) A month on from creation, not a single secondary source has been found for the topic. The phrase "recognised as countries" shows one of the key issues with this list, as there is no "country" status that can be recognised. The list misleading presents this term as a specific category of thing, when it's simply a term applied to some entities sometimes, and an arbitrary one at that. There is very little linking Indian tribes with Scotland. There is no reason with some British Overseas Territories are here and others aren't. That there is a Varied terminology subsection is odd, as that would apply to every entity on this list. CMD (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or move/re-defined) . It's important to be clear about the two headings currently used in the article, "non-sovereign country" and "non-sovereign nations". Scotland for example is a "country' according to ISO and the tribal nations of the USA are referred to as "nations", both clear definitions.
  
  It may be more appropriate to discuss a potential re-definitions of headings or a move to "Non-sovereign states" as discussed in: https://www.thoughtco.com/country-state-and-nation-1433559 for example, rather than just deleting the entire page. Titus Gold (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Those are not definitions, those are names/labels. This page lacks any definitions. As for the link discussed (not that it appears to be that high quality a source), we already have articles for those topics at Country, State (polity), and Nation. Any rename of this article would face the same issue of SYNTH, the issue is not the title per se. CMD (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I don't think Scotland belongs here. The way England, Scotland, Wales and perhaps Northern Ireland are called countries are not, outside of some international sports such as football, rugby and cricket, in the same way as the other cases listed. They aren't assigned ordinary CCTLDs, country calling codes or ISO codes, for instance. Nor do they appear on their own on most lists or tables. 116.92.234.154 (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All inhabited BOTs should be included. Why not? 219.76.18.205 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Original research, for a start. WP:CFORK secondly, at that point. CMD (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article is pure WP:OR, and is impossible to recreate without OR. As CMD says, the phrases defining the list, recognised as countries by their respective sovereign states and non-sovereign "nations" that are recognised as such either by their respective sovereign state or internationally are essentially meaningless. There is no "country" or "nation" status that exists in any sense that can meaningfully be applied internationally, except that of a sovereign state. The statuses of the entities in the list are not at all the same, while entities that do have the same status are not treated as parallel. It's a bit like making a list of Indians that includes both Mahatma Gandhi and Pocahontas, but excludes both Sacagawea and Srinivasa Ramanujan as insufficiently "Indian".

It is worth considering that there are many other entities called "countries", but they are generally different things in different places. For example, all States of Germany and all States of Austria are formally referred to in German as "countries" or "federal countries". For example, France has a concept of a "country" that is a small cultural region. All of these statuses are different. Essentially the only point of commonality between these entities is that some Wikipedian has found some document that happened to describe them with the word "country". Kahastok talk 13:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given this edit, I feel I should mention for the benefit of the closer that, while I have been contributing to the wider topic editor for many years, I was not aware of this article before I was pinged to this discussion. I am not aware of having had any other previous contact with the nominator. Kahastok talk 19:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've pinged two random editors who I've seen from the page's history have made major contributions to this topic for many years. Privybst (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the German language or the English language? Is there any evidence that German or Austrian states are called "countries" or "federal countries" in the English language? If we are to talk about other languages, what about Shikoku or any of the geographical regions in Japan which were ryōseikoku/ritsuryōkoku? Why don't we focus only on the English language and related concepts in other languages such as the case of the pays d'outre-mer of French Polynesia? 219.76.18.205 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, because the article says nothing about requiring English, and second because in doing it your way the list is a list of anything that anyone has ever described using the word country in English. Which is even worse than the article as currently conceived, in that it adds a layer of systemic bias in favour of English-speaking countries on top. Kahastok talk 20:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about Chūgoku? 220.246.37.189 (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The concept is ill-defined. England is part of the United Kingdom (and included), but why are Texas and California, which were independent polities incorporated into the United States not included? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Any evidence that California or Texas or Florida or Massachusetts are called or described as countries? 124.217.188.170 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very oxymoronic concept. I'd imagine that anything here is an administrative subdivision, or belongs at Dependent territory. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_19#Category:Non-sovereign_countries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom and discussion. TNstingray (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commemt: Why are there countries which are "non-sovereign"? 124.217.188.170 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC) — 124.217.188.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Because the term 'country' is equivocally defined and not always co-extensive with a state. Although this is, in fact, well established, it is a poor basis for building a list article as lists must have well defined inclusion criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...equivocally defined See below. 218.255.22.106 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. An alternative option would be merge and redirect to the list of dependent territories and keep all edit history. 219.76.18.205 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— 219.76.18.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:SPA,

Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point.
Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus, and is therefore not an SPA.
Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Please consult the general test and the "who not to tag" section below, in deciding whether the editor is actually an SPA. Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation to the tagged editor — use with consideration.
A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with just a single edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as five or even 10 edits are not necessarily SPAs even if those edits are on a single topic or appear to be promoting a "single purpose."

Many IP editors would have edited from other addresses within the same, similar or nearby ranges as well in other topics. In 219.76.18.205's case there are even edits in other quite unrelated topics recently from exactly the same address. Tagging without responding anything in substance only exposes your stature in this topic. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any assumptions here. Per normal practice, I am highlighting the fact that we have 57 IP editors from Hong Kong with no substantial editing history commenting on this topic despite having no IP editors from anywhere else in the whole world. It is up to the closer what they make of the information. The templates merely bring this to their attention. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I am not an SPA. The tag added under my comment[13] was unnecessary and was indeed an apparent attack. You are already assuming something by adding the tag. 58.152.59.185 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC, which has reason 8: Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.. In particular this list relies upon WP:SYNTH because it relies on disparate definitions of what constitutes a country. Although some commentators above seem to understand a country to be co-extensive with a state, English usage has other definitions, and it is clear that there are countries that are not states, but incorporated in states, or in the purview of states. Nevertheless the definition of country varies and is often disputed. Sources in this article demonstrate the grey areas but do not prove these are countries. UK home nations are countries by one definition, and the source shows they have ISO country codes (which is not quite saying that the ISO recognises them as countries, despite what the page says). But different inclusion criteria are used for different entries and others (such as Texas per Peter Kingiron) are excluded arbitrarily simply because no one (much) calls them a country. Inclusion based on equivocal definitions of countries is WP:SYNTH and an attempt to limit the definition to one single definition would be WP:OR so I think this list is doomed to failure, and sadly must be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless the definition of country varies and is often disputed. @Sirfurboy: This isn't quite the case as far the as purpose of the maintenance of lists and tables and other sort of data is concerned. 218.255.22.106 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meaningless confusion. Rathfelder (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep until they are merged back in to be covered by the List of countries. They are countries to speakers and users of the English language, e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], editors and readers of Wikipedia across different languages, e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and in the press and the academia, e.g. [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. 218.255.22.106 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closer, this IP geolocates to the same location as previous IP strong keep and neither has substantial edit history outside of this subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By same location you are talking about a country of seven million people and different telcos most of which having their registered addresses in just a few neighbourhoods of the country; and for substantive edit history you are talking about non-static IP addresses assigned by these telcos. 220.246.37.189 (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are now five IPs, all geolocating to the same city, with minimal contribution history, in this discussion. Kahastok talk 10:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the countries which would likely belong to this list and therefore affected by the decision here. The so called "the same city" in question here is actually a territory which contains some other towns and villages with a total number of several million inhabitants. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And six separate individuals with no significant editing history just happened upon this page, within the space of three days, all from the same city, all making substantially the same argument, several of them explicitly referring to an old article that was converted to a redirect in 2008? Really?

It's pretty obvious what's going on here and there is nothing in any policy or guideline that requires that we pretend we were born yesterday. Kahastok talk 17:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, just for clarity these links are to things that describe entities that are not sovereign states as "countries". Most of them include entities like Hong Kong, that are not sovereign states but that are not on this list - a fact that rather demonstrates the issue here. I don't think anyone has denied that it is possible to describe "country" other than as a sovereign state. But, in my experience, there are as many mutually-incompatible notions of what belongs on a "list of countries" as there are people willing to argue that their notion is the only right one. And all of them are WP:OR because they're all based on what the individual's POV rather than lists produced by WP:RS. Kahastok talk 08:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Puerto Rico, Gibraltar, Aruba and Greenland in those links too. Hong Kong just naturally stands out with its size of population larger than all of the rest combined, and e.g. much bigger size of economy. 220.246.37.189 (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— 218.255.22.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (per any of the options mentioned above) and do not delete. You don't need any OR or any sort of research at all. These lists are just everywhere and it's simply nothing difficult to find these territories appearing alongside those other "mainstream" countries which people may call states or sovereign states. 220.246.37.189 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— 220.246.37.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Such as "List of countries which are not sovereign states". So practically it would include all entities which are covered by the many different lists of countries but not already included in (or indeed axed from - before that list was renamed?) the List of sovereign states. 116.92.234.154 (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— 116.92.234.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change content Seems to be the term "nation" that some are finding confusing. Could we remove the "nation" heading and change the content of this page strictly to entities recognised as Countries by the International Standards Organisation (ISO)? Titus Gold (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is the main problem. ISO has no definition of 'country', those are names/labels. Privybst (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are country codes. And there's a reason why some are assigned a code and some aren't. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a List of ISO 3166 country codes. CMD (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are also ITU (E.164, E.212), GS1, and NATO country codes, and CCTLDs, ICAO prefixes, to name some. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about, say, the EU Annex A5 list? Or the 1998 UN M49 list? 58.152.59.185 (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC) — 58.152.59.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Titus Gold: You'd have to stick with a specific meaning of the word nation, which is quite similar or almost identical as country, i.e., a term that refer those which are assigned country codes, but not the other meanings of that word. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and indeed a vote): The solution is not about deleting or merging or moving or renaming. It's about reviving this page at its stable version before its demise. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC) — 1.36.63.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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!} 06:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Kooria[edit]

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

It looks quite a bit WP:TOOSOON, at best, for academic notability for this 2016 PhD. He has one authored book, but I'm not finding reviews in reliable sources for WP:NAUTHOR. No other sign of notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for the very same reasons mentioned above. His scholarship is not yet terribly noteworthy and he doesn't yet hold a full professor post or that of a senior administrator. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One authored book only would not generally be enough for WP:AUTHOR, even with published reviews. Without them (and I didn't find any either in my searching) the case is clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of the WP:NPROF criteria. Limited coverage of his work. He has less than 100 citations on google scholar https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GRXjb-kAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

JamesKH76 (talk) 07:58, 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 draftify. If it is cleaned up in short order, it can be restored to mainspace in short order. BD2412 T 05:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Air Defence Command[edit]

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

Apparently machine translated article from Arabic. Significant details are being lost in the translation. For instance, Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun becomes "Boovers" in this translation. Parts of the article are completely not understandable because sentences run on forever with no punctuation. Better to nuke it and start again. Schierbecker (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - usually I would just vote keep because AFD is not cleanup, but you seem to specialise in writing these articles so I will hit you up for an elaboration please? Just because the article was not well translated does not lend to an argument for deletion in my view. I am not seeing grounds for TNT. Are there no reliable sources for this? If so, then removing poor quality content seems a better option than deletion.

MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PRESERVE. The article is only eight days old, so it is not like it has stayed for years in this sorry state. The subject is not really covered in the Iraqi Air Force article either, and there is a lot of stuff to be said on the subject; reliable sources do exist. Alternatively, moving it to draft space might be a good compromise. BilletsMauves^€500 18:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I think draftification is a good ATD that keeps both the nominator's and BilletsMauves concerns in mind; not outright nuking the article, but pulling it out of mainspace. Curbon7 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify poorly written/translated and minimally referenced, but subject seems worthy of a page and may be able to be turned into something useful. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way to get an article turned into something useful is to leave it in main space where it can be found by potential editors, not to hide it away in draft space where it will be automatically deleted after six months. That's the whole point of a wiki. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is interested in the topic they will probably go and improve it pursuant to this AFD, if not then it can be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor article, but clearly a notable subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 13 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!} 06:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify needs a clean up, badly. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apradhi Kaun (2000 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Apradhi Kaun (2000 film)

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

Fails to establish notability (all database sources). Only source found was a database book mention. DareshMohan (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDATABASE. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barood (The Fire) A Love Story[edit]

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

The film released in 2010 and surprisingly has no reviews or no sourcing to establish its notability. Found one book source and nothing else. DareshMohan (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet the criterion WP:NFILM. No reviews or comments found before. --Dark Juliorik (talk) 07:42, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Chernihiv[edit]

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

A list with only two elements, both of which are ‘unusual’ (the Antiquities Museum may screen films but isn’t a commercial cinema, the Shchors cinema is no longer a cinema ). Wikipedia isn’t a directory, but in any case neither of the listed entities are actually cinemas. Mccapra (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Ukraine. Mccapra (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. TNstingray (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:34, 24 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 Thor (band)#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recruits – Wild in the Streets[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NALBUM, is solely reliant on a single reliable source. Dan arndt (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Canada. Dan arndt (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom + no further coverage in my own search. QuietHere (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect to Thor (band)#Discography

Redirect to Thor (band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:54, 24 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 Thor (band)#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Detroit (Thor album)[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NALBUM, is solely reliant on a single source. Dan arndt (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Canada. Dan arndt (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom + no further coverage in my own search. QuietHere (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect to Thor (band)#Discography

Redirect to Thor (band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:53, 24 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!} 03:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parent show[edit]

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

Dictionary definition, see WP:NOTDICT. I do not think a redirect is appropriate, as the concept of a spin-off is not general to TV, and there is at least one TV series called The Parent Show it could be confused with. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very simple WP:NOTDICT case IMHO Mr.weedle (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never heard this term ever seen on anything involving the television industry. Nate • (chatter) 20:27, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elite 9 Hockey League[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Currently sourced by primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Massachusetts. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:57, 5 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!} 02:41, 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!} 02:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As original page creator (long ago), delete. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 21:14, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 MIAA Division 1A Boy's Ice Hockey Tournament[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Article also lacks WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and United States of America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 5 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!} 02:41, 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!} 02:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: High school hockey in Massachusetts is covered regularly in newspapers such as The Boston Globe. Perhaps it is better to rework this into High school boys ice hockey in Massachusetts, similar to High school boys ice hockey in Minnesota. A broader scope would satisfy significant and lasting coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 21:21, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Temple[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found, most are for Star Wars music for some reason. Nothing for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Luke Skywalker" and "Jedi Temple" are mentioned together fairly frequently but adding a qualifier like music, band, album, or review finds plenty as per below. Skynxnex (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has full length articles in Pop Matters [46], New York Times [47], Under the Radar [48], reviews in Billboard [49], Boston Globe [50], and an interview in Tape Op [51]. This is alongside the NPR [52] and Pitchfork [53] sources present in the article. There's plenty for this fellow. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep given the additional articles found by Why? I Ask. I was curious and searched a bit more and three more Pitchfork reviews: Snowbeast, Act Like You Don't Care, and Good Mood Fool. Consequence of Sound review, article in Premier Guitar, and luke temple tag on StereoGum has had 24 posts that are either reviews or mention him. Skynxnex (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]
There's an additional Pitchfork review I missed under his Art Feynman name [54]; article about him under that name in The Quietus [55]; and a newer Pop Matters story [56]. Skynxnex (talk) 20:18, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Temple[edit]

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

Not seeing enough in the way of credits and notice to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A handful of writing credits but no significant coverage and no awards to show WP:NOTE. Perhaps an article in future if there's changed AKA WP:TOOSOON Mr.weedle (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google News is not coughing up any possibly GNG-compliant coverage, in addition to not having a credible claim of significance needed by WP:NAUTHOR. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 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.