Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 24 September 26 >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look DS Service[edit]

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

Putting the article's promotional tone aside, I don't think this topic is notable, mainly because it's very difficult to establish proper source independence. All of the current sources are strikingly promotional. [1] contains gems like An incredibly remarkable feat when you consider Look’s humble beginnings. and This player ... is playfully referred to as their ‘first child’. [2] is a passing mention. [3]: If yes, the LOOK DS tool is what you need. It will grace your digital signage displays to keep your audience interested. [4]: It is an award-winning, easy, and dependable software solution for remote control of digital screen networks of different sizes and functions, such as advertising panels in retail shops or restaurant digital menu boards. [5] is passing. [6]... is somewhat better than the previous ones. But it's still just a review, and not a particularly nuanced or insightful one. So I don't even think this passes WP:GNG. Ovinus (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to nominate this for deletion myself but the nominator beat me to it. The sources are highly dubious and appear to largely consist of SEO spam and unvetted 'contributor' articles. For instance, this does not appear to be a legitimate news site and the article is completely nonsensical - it spends one paragraph on the topic and then goes into talking about BBC, Instagram and Facebook Live. This has the byline "Brought to you by Look DS", this seems to be a site that allows anyone to submit articles, this is written by an anonymous "Guest Author", this doesn't appear to be reliable and this seems to be an advertorial site (see their about me: We work with startups and businesses of all natures to help them reach the audiences to grow their businesses and further their messaging.) Not notable, likely UPE spam. Spicy (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bad sources and smells of spam.TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 27 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 11:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of browser engines (CSS support)[edit]

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

Pages nominated:

Reason for deletion:

Procedurally refiling Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support). My policy-based reason for deletion is that, in addition to the original proposed deletion reasons quoted above, these lists are no better than the list deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of JavaScript engines; that is, to partially quote from Aoidh, these are "simple listing[s]" that [are] specifically mentioned under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. [... They have] no context and [are] painfully out-of-date. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This discussion needs more participants before a rough consensus can emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per WP:NOT. These are just guides to assist someone in answering "What browser should I use?" and are way too technical for the average reader to make use of. For those reasons, I don't think that comparison articles should be something on an encyclopedia, and I believe these are things someone should just go to a tech review site or forum for. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, these pages fail WP:NOTGUIDE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:02, 28 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 National Association of Free Will Baptists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free Will Baptist Home Missions[edit]

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

Article does not have reliable sources, largely relies on first-person sources. WP:N is also questionable, especially since the article has been orphaned for ten years. Ha2772a (talk) 22:00, 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. ✗plicit 14:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa McDermott[edit]

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

WP:N SparklingSnail (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It would help if the person who raised this AFD actually stated some grounds for deletion, but they didn't, does that disqualify it? It may be that they are arguing that this person is not notable, I question this, note that there are several references. PatGallacher (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources found, the article isn't entirely clear what she did to be notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Scotland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a bad RfD, but the article should still go. The bulk of the article's sources amount to little more than trivial mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'll grant that it would be nice if the nominator had provided more detail, but the article itself isn't actually claiming that she would meet any particular notability criterion and is referenced principally to glancing namechecks of her existence as a participant in events rather than substantive coverage about her as a subject. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 27 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! 23:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty N' Justice[edit]

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

WP:BAND SparklingSnail (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Im saying keep cecause of the sources User:Atlantic306 added and that the band had a lot of followers in the 1990s.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:54, 25 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! 21:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Weak rationale, and sources shared by Atlantic306 establish notability. Garuda3 (talk) 21:05, 1 October 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 UFO conspiracy theories#1990s. The consensus is merge. There are two suggested targets. UFO conspiracy theories#1990s appears the most appropriate as it has held information about the Branton Files since 2005. SilkTork (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Branton Files[edit]

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

WP:N SparklingSnail (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see more of an argument for deletion than simply stating WP:N which doesn't explain much about this particular article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Reptilian conspiracy theory. Not known by this title, but could be retitled to Branton (conspiracy theorist), Bruce A. Walton (said to be his real name) or, preferably, his main work The Omega Files. Realistically, even though there are short section in the current article and here, his reptilian/Nazi conspiracy theory can be adequately summarized from those materials in the existing article on the conspiracy theory. czar 00:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. There is scant information for this conspiracy theory to rate a stand-alone article. I found a reference to this in Supernatural Magazine where the reviewer noted that Branton claims "...Government scientists purportedly labor alongside an occupying alien force to work out the sundry ways the general population aboveground can be brought under an ultimate totalitarian control, all of which began with a 1947 treaty signed by President Harry Truman – the government obtained alien technological secrets in exchange for permitting the aliens to abduct human subjects for their diabolical research...." The three citations in the article as of this writing are all about different conspiracy theories with no single reference exclusively dealing with this one. Blue Riband► 02:44, 3 October 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 content can be restored and merged at an editor's initiative. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esports at the 2018 Asian Games – League of Legends[edit]

Esports at the 2018 Asian Games – League of Legends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this series of separate articles really need to exist? At the moment, they do not really justify their own existence. My proposal is either condense them down and add tables back into Esports at the 2018 Asian Games. Thoughts? (Note: I am using Twinkle, so there will be six article submissions that I will then condense into one heading). TNstingray (talk) 20:06, 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! 20:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Whoa, didn't realize one of these identical noms got left open. Just noting that a merge isn't really necessary because it's all unsourced stats cruft that really should't be documented on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's my fault. I had used Twinkle, assuming I could go back through and condense into one heading like I usually do over at RfD. Except I failed to consider that each submission gets its own sub-page here at AfD. So I just left it as is, but I should have looked into just them all as one submission. TNstingray (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No no, it's fine, that wasn't directed at you, I was just surprised because I was keeping an eye on them all and thought they all closed at once. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Ward, 5th Earl of Dudley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
David Ward, 5th Earl of Dudley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO due to a lack of in-depth, secondary, independent, reliable coverage. The subject is a British nobleman who does not qualify for WP:NPOL due to inheriting his current title in 2013. The sources in the article are a passing mention (obituary), a self-published peerage website, and a BEFORE only turned up a Spectator article [2] which mentions him in one paragraph, which is insufficient given that WP:SPECTATOR pieces are treated as opinion pieces. Possible redirect target: Earl of Dudley. Pilaz (talk) 20:00, 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! 20:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - totally non-notable. Just having lots of fancy titles is not enough. --Bduke (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:20, 29 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 21:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Drop of Love[edit]

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

Spam created by an editor for payment. Most of the coverage is marked as "news desk" or is made-up (press releases/paid for articles which newspapers never maintain in their archives - that's why they are citing pictures uploaded to Internet Archives - smart work). ROTM awards, fails WP:SIGCOV. Michalis Andreou (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above, it's all spammy SEO type links, I find no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, films do not all get an automatic free pass over WP:NFILM just because they exist — they have to show evidence of significance, supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage. But the only notability claim being attempted here is film awards from minor film festivals, referenced to their own self-published websites about themselves or the filmmaker's paid promotional press releases rather than proper media coverage to establish the notability of said festivals, and the rest of the sourcing just ain't cutting it otherwise. Even "film notable because awards" still requires the awards to be notable awards. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 27 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. Deletion is supported, and not clearly opposed. There has been detailed discussion and search for sources to try to establish what exists at the location, though nothing clear has been established, other than there appears to have been a community at one time around a mill which may or may not continue to exist. This is a form of soft delete - the article may be undeleted into Draft space on request, from where it may be moved into main space after passing review. SilkTork (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher Mill, Virginia[edit]

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

Previously bundled, re-nominating individually. The "unincorporated community" description appears to be a GNIS error; sources simply describe this place as a mill, and there's not enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am looking into this Mill, It might be in literature as Fletchers/Fletcher's Mill in Sperryville, as seen here. Will try to do some more research but I need to take a break. Shearonink (talk) 23:34, 11 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! 19:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The modern design house named "Fletcher's Mill Residence", presumably thereabouts, has sources Residential Dsign Magazine article, https://richardwilliamsarchitects.com/FLETCHER-S-MILL. Still downloading. --Doncram (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the NRHP doc: "By 1910 Sperryville reached its prime. Four churches stood within the bustling village: two Baptist, one Episcopal, and one Methodist. The town had five general stores, five com and flour mills, pal, and one Methodist. The town had five general stores, five com and flour mills, a jeweler arid watch maker, a saw mill , several furniture dealers as well as a number of blacksmiths-wheelwrights. However, the growth was abruptly halted in 1911 when the Snoot tannery closed...". The district appears to include Zirkle Mill but has no mention of Fletcher's; I presume Fletcher's is outside... oh, its coordinates put it 1.8 miles away by Google maps. It is on the Thornton River. There are a few houses there, including 9 Fletcher's Mill Rd. with elaborate formal gardens behind, and 17 Fletcher's Mill Rd, and there's a building on "Short Rd." which from Google Streetview appears to be a horse barn. Three roads make a triangle: Sperryville Pike (U.S. Route 522) and those two mentioned. Seems to me like a location, i guess you would call it an unincorporated place.
There's a photo and passage about a visit to Fletcher's Mill in 1919 article in American Miller. The miller, then, a Mr. Wayland, had a house and farm nearby, no mention of more community then. Any historic mill like that would be a significant landmark, a place of note, anyhow. Maybe merge/redirect to Thornton River? --Doncram (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what gave you the idea to treat it as a location or "unincorporated place" instead of just a mill? –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, because there is a Wikipedia article which was saying it is an unincorporated community until you just changed it, and a Gnis source. Does Gnis cover individual mills? What does the Gnis source mean? And by a deletion nominator changing what the article says, stripping some stuff out, during the AFD (which is usually confusing and I think not recommended), does that mean u support it being an article about a mill? If so, could you please withdraw the AFD, as there are no other "delete" votes. If you want to continue the AFD, please add back what you removed.
The mill is also listed List of wheat and corn mills registered with the Dairy and Food Division of the Department of Agriculture and Immigration of Virginia in July 1911, July 1912 as having a guaranteed daily capacity of 24 bbls. (barrels?) of flour and 75 bus. (bushels?) of meal (cornmeal?), with the latter footnoted to say that it was below minimum capacity, whatever that means (did that mean it was guaranteeing 75 bus. production but that was below its actual maximum capacity?). That was for James H. Fletcher of Sperryville, VA. --Doncram (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it has a different level of registration [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Bulletin/n8gcAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Fletcher%27s+Mill+in+Sperryville,+Virginia&pg=RA1-PA4&printsec=frontcover in similar list for the year July 1914-June 30, 1915
The place or unincorporated community or mill, on Virginia Route 620 (which the Fletcher Mill Rd. is designated), is also the put-in place for a 7 miles (11 km) class II and III whitewater run (page 149 of Adventure Guide to Virginia by Leonard M. Atkins, Hunter Publishing Inc., 1998
And it is also a place in a 1988 Paddler's Guide by H. Roger Corbett
and there is also coverage (but I can't see how much) in 1976 Back to Nature in Canoes
And it is a place in another Canoeing Whitewater guide from 1974
And it is covered in a 1987 Appalachian Whitewater book, which also mentions that during the American Civil War that Southern troops camped by the Thornton River in Sperryville, perhaps meaning this spot but I can't see.
And it appears in (but I can't see how much coverage there is) in Fact, Fiction, Foolishishness in Rappahannock County Virginia, or something like that by Elizabeth Branch Johnson, looks like a local history book.
So it is seeming to me to be a known place, as well as having been a mill. Google satellite view suggests to me that the mill is gone; it didn't look good in the 2018 photo linked above, but once notable always notable applies. --Doncram (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "unincorporated community" description as it had no reliable source. GNIS is unreliable for "feature class" designations because yes, the database does erroneously list mills and other random buildings that appear on topo maps as "populated places".
I hoped my question would help you take a step back and ask yourself whether the sourcing that we have (excluding GNIS) treats this as an actual community. Mills, stores, crossroads, etc are often used as landmarks in rural areas even though they don't usually meet our notability standards, and unfortunately I'm just not seeing enough direct coverage of the subject itself to justify an article. I might change my mind if such sources can be found.
As for the location, the 2018 photo appears to match this spot on the satellite view which is consistent with American Miller's description of the water source as a small stream. –dlthewave ☎ 12:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, good that the mill seems to survive, on what is labelled as Beaver Dam Creek in Google satellite view which i think is 2022 imaging. That makes sense that the creek would have been blocked by a dam for the mill, rather than the river being blocked. That's more than 100 yards away from the river, in trees, and not likely visible from the river or the point given in coordinates in the Fletcher Dam article or the closeby point that Google gives when one searches on Fletchers Mill. So actually that tends to mean that "Fletchers Mill" is a bigger place, like a community, when stated as the location for canoe put-in onto the river, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawthorne Mill, Virginia (2nd nomination)]]
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millesons Mill, West Virginia
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eads Mill, West Virginia
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunn Mill, Indiana
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klines Mill, Virginia
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoover Mill, Indiana
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylett Mill, Virginia
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fletcher Mill, Virginia
--Doncram (talk) 02:55, 24 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! 20:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for failing GNG. I ran a search for "Fletcher Mill" and got a roadway guide and a Maine-based peppermill company. USPS doesn't think it's important enough to have its own ZIP code.Blue Riband► 02:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aylett Mill, Virginia[edit]

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

Previously bundled, re-nominating individually. The "unincorporated community" description appears to be a GNIS error; sources simply describe this place as a mill, and there's not enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 11 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! 19:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawthorne Mill, Virginia (2nd nomination)]]
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millesons Mill, West Virginia
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eads Mill, West Virginia
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunn Mill, Indiana
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klines Mill, Virginia
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoover Mill, Indiana
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylett Mill, Virginia
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fletcher Mill, Virginia
--Doncram (talk) 02:55, 24 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! 20:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the only notable thing I found about this place was a pressure washing business. USPS doesn't give the place its own ZIP code. Blue Riband► 02:26, 3 October 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. The proposal to delete is supported, and not clearly opposed. There has been research conducted to show that a mill existed at one time, plus some other dwellings, but no assertions as to existing notability. This is a form of soft delete - the article may be undeleted into Draft space on request, from where it may be moved into main space after passing review. In order to pass review and be accepted, there would need to be sufficient content supported by reliable sources which indicate current notability according to our inclusion criteria. SilkTork (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klines Mill, Virginia[edit]

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

Previously bundled, re-nominating individually. The "unincorporated community" description appears to be a GNIS error; sources simply describe this place as a mill, and there's not enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not huge amounts of coverage but...
Sometimes I'm a Keeper of Things around here so I am leaning toward Keep. The now somewhat-forgotten, now-unpopulated places maybe shouldn't be "erased" from Wikipedia... Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This might be enough to establish GNG notability. Keep in mind that we don't have a reliable source saying that it was a populated place or community (I don't think the owner's nearby home counts), so the article would just be about the mill. –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found some more:
The complex of buildings at Kline's Mill 34-160 includes:
the log and stone mill, two brick miller's houses, a board and batten building used as a post office and several farm outbuildings. The mill, which is log on a raised stone basement, was constructed in 1794 and is one of the few in the area that survived the Civil War. The other buildings date to the mid- and late nineteenth century. Along with the complex at Bartonsville, this is the finest eighteenth- and nineteenth-century mill/industrial complex in the county.
So, at one time Klines Mill Virginia (or Kline's Mill - have to look for both spellings when doing research) was a settlement, a known place, with at least 2 houses (the ones the VA DHS mentions are brick so they survived and - don't know for sure but - there could have been other wooden houses. Wooden buildings were popular to pull down and use for whatever during and after the Civil War in Virginia) plus there is that now-abandoned post office... Shearonink (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am just parking this JSTOR ref from 1938 here, I think it might be useful in some further research on Virginia places: Old Houses in King William County - The William and Mary Quarterly. Shearonink (talk) 02:48, 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! 19:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawthorne Mill, Virginia (2nd nomination)]]
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millesons Mill, West Virginia
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eads Mill, West Virginia
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunn Mill, Indiana
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klines Mill, Virginia
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoover Mill, Indiana
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylett Mill, Virginia
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fletcher Mill, Virginia
--Doncram (talk) 02:54, 24 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, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for failing GNG. The only thing this place has going for it is a barn that can be rented as event space. I didn't find anything else other than "how to get to..." direction site. The USPS doesn't have a ZIP code for a town by this name. Blue Riband► 02:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might not now have a ZIP code for Kline's Mill/Klines Mill but there was a post office in/for Klines Mill at one time. Shearonink (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm repeating myself here but am again including some cited info to say
how can a place/a Mill that has a painting/print by P. Buckley Moss, that has an article in Society of Architectural Historians Archipedia, that the Frederick County government has identified as a possible Historic District Page 5, that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources identifies as containing "one of the few buildings in the area to survive the Civil War" and says it's the "finest 18th Century & 19th Century mill/industrial complex in the county" Page 220 -
not be notable?
It is possible somehow that as an unincorporated community "Kline's Mill" is not notable in the present-day, but the complex of buildings, the place historically known as Kline's Mill is notable. The event-space/wedding-venue business that unfortunately has almost the same name - The Barn at Kline's Mill - is not at all the same thing. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 October 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eads Mill, West Virginia[edit]

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

Previously bundled, re-nominating individually. The "unincorporated community" description appears to be a GNIS error; sources simply describe this place as a mill, and there's not enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:20, 11 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! 19:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawthorne Mill, Virginia (2nd nomination)]]
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millesons Mill, West Virginia
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eads Mill, West Virginia
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunn Mill, Indiana
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klines Mill, Virginia
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoover Mill, Indiana
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylett Mill, Virginia
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fletcher Mill, Virginia
--Doncram (talk) 02:52, 24 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, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for failing notability as a place. A search came up only with maps that it exists as a geographic location and not much else. The USPS doesn't even have a ZIP code for a town or village by that name.Blue Riband► 02:10, 3 October 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..

As the previous AfD was closed no consensus by way of being a trainwreck in general (rather than by any arguments specifically about the notability of this location), I do not see it as an impediment to closing this as a soft delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Millesons Mill, West Virginia[edit]

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

Previously bundled, re-nominating individually. The "unincorporated community" description appears to be a GNIS error; sources simply describe this place as a mill, and there's not enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:19, 11 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! 19:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawthorne Mill, Virginia (2nd nomination)]]
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millesons Mill, West Virginia
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eads Mill, West Virginia
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunn Mill, Indiana
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klines Mill, Virginia
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoover Mill, Indiana
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylett Mill, Virginia
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fletcher Mill, Virginia
--Doncram (talk) 02:53, 24 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, 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 procedural close. Of the three commenters, two stated that they felt this should not have been a bundled nomination. With low participation and several relists, it's clear the format of this AFD is preventing wider community participation. No prejudice against a speedy re-nomination of each individual article in its own separate AFD. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don Pepin Garcia[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, minimal sources, promotional, advertisement-like article. NytharT.C 09:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also adding these non-notable cigar brand articles that appear to have been made by the same user:

El Rey de los Habanos (cigar)
Vegas Cubanas
Rey Miguel (cigar brand)
Cuban Diplomat
Habana Leon
Hirsh y Garcia
Nacionales W
Sancti Spiritus (cigar)
Tatuaje
Cabaiguán (cigar)
Padilla Miami
Signature 1932
Corojo Label
EO Premium 601 Serie
Fumadores
Old Henry
Tatuaje Havana VI
Troya (cigar)
Rio Tabac Alpha Series
Padilla Habano
Padilla Maduro
Padilla Hybrid
Reyes Family (cigar)

Most of the articles listed above have database or unreliable sources, not particularly notable; they don't appear to pass WP:GNG. NytharT.C 09:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nicaragua and Florida. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it difficult to consider these as a group - some have at least one "decent" reference (from Cigar Aficionado magazine), and since these articles are from around 2006 there may be other sources. Others have zero references, and after a short review might be quickly deleted. A fair amount of WP:BEFORE is going to be needed. Having taken a look at some of these and at articles for other cigar brands it does look to me that the only information is going to come from cigar magazines, which are as pretty much about promotion, but I assume that's the same for other types of products. (There are occasional mentions in business news sources, but that relates to the company, not the product.) I suggest considering this one, which is in relatively good shape, which might help us all understand what sources are needed for cigar notability. Lamona (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lamona: The article of Cigar Aficionado looks like an advertisement, and most of the sources in the article are from its own website, so I don't know how relevant that magazine is. NytharT.C 19:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Nythar I definitely hear you. At the same time, I think that CA is one of those magazines, like wine magazines and fashion magazines, that essentially exist as advertisements. But I don't know where such magazines stand as sources, but this one isn't on the list of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, nor is the wine magazine by the same editor. I looked at the WP Cigar Aficionado article and it is entirely sourced to itself (with one exception that doesn't support notability). I've added the "needs 3rd party sources" tag. Lamona (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am wondering if these might be merged into a list of hand-rolled cigar manufacturers. BD2412 T 05:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would suggest this AfD to only be about Don Pepin Garcia to save confusion. A separate discussion through WP:RM might benefit for the list mentioned. – The Grid (talk) 13:58, 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! 19:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like an advertisement stuff. Found no reliable sources Atighot (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting to consider Merge option or unbundling this nomination brought up by a participant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Father's Diary[edit]

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

Created by a UPE. Fails WP:NFILM – multiple reviews are required – here, awards in non-notable ROTM festivals and coverage is tagged as "news desk", so probably paid for. Michalis Andreou (talk) 20:24, 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) 19:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utkirbek Qahhorov[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and WP:FILMMAKER. This article had been redirected to the article about the "Sabriya" TV series for which he has known but Lostinniagarafalls reverted that, so I'm asking for deletion as redirects are costly. My issue with the sources is that most citations are not about the subject. Those that are about the subject are either not reliable (like IMDb) or they seem to be crass, paid-for, churnalism which merely provide key data about the subject with flattering photos of the subject probably at the behest of the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because Lostinniagarafalls moved the article:

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrew's College, Saskatoon[edit]

St. Andrew's College, Saskatoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. WP:ADMASQ. Insufficient material to stand alone from University of Saskatchewan (fails WP:GNG as a freestanding entity. Consider merge. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Christianity. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and draftify Salvageable material should be pushed to the university article and this article should be retained in a draft state on the expectation of additional material shaking out via print sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More sources will be found by searching with the old name ("Presbyterian Theological College"). Remember that it was established via an Act of Parliament, which immediately suggests notability, and I see significant coverage in old books about theological education in Canada: this one from 1924 and this one from 1925. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to originator - Was there a reason to move war this article rather than discussing either the decline or the draftification? Waiting for additional sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the sources uncovered by Anselm, there are many hits on Newspapers.com. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG, and only need minor edits to add citations suggested by Anselm. -- EriedgenArc (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The sources found and added to the article since this discussion began are easily enough to satisfy WP:GNG. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is an affiliated (not constituent) college or a mere university department. Many denominations do not like their theological education controlled by secular institutions. Deletion is certainly the wrong solution, but merger to the Saskatoon Theological Union might have been feasible, but that is little more than a dabpage. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted (G5). (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWDI-DTV[edit]

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

Disputed draftification Unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:29, 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 speedy deleted (G5). (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWLB-DTV[edit]

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

Disputed draftification Unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:29, 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 speedy deleted (G5). (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV5 Batangas[edit]

TV5 Batangas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moved to draft space as 'not ready' but immediately moved back to main without much, if any, improvement. A 'naive' search reveals only information about the parent company and the first result was to that company's Wikipedia article (List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network). The current version is seemingly unsourced and to return to draft would be 'move-warring'. Re-direction could be an option. Eagleash (talk) 18:58, 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. There is a dissenting "keep" here, but I see nothing to refute Beccaynr's analysis about the unreliability of the sourcing. Having looked at the article, the WP:BLP1E issue also has merit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Jenkins[edit]

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

Page about me is inaccurate causing it to be libelous. I am not an investment counselor, I am a retired cybersecurity professional. The RI company Locke Capital Management was closed in 2008. I was the wrongful target of an SEC civil lawsuit 15 years ago due to required compliance records for a large Swiss client being destroyed by a then business partner who was Chief Operating Officer. The SEC won a summary judgment in a process that did not see the truthful mitigating evidence because evidence is not considered in a summary judgement and the Defendants could not afford legal representation which would have directed the outcome of the case appropriately. The Wikipedia page also suggests that I was involved with passport fraud. I was advised to change my name on my passport due to marriage when it came up for renewal and it was time to apply for my UK visa. I did nothing inappropriate in making an application for a new passport in November 2009. However and most unfortunately, false documents containing information unbeknownst to me were found later with my application and on my former business partner's computer during a subsequent government search. That information was wrongly attributed to me due to prosecutorial misconduct. When the government's mistake was discovered during the appeal process, the appeal was disallowed for being filed in the wrong legal format. As defendant I had no legal counsel for advice on how to file the appeal.

Please help me by deleting this page. I don't know who put it up or why but it was done recently - not 15 years ago. I remain a victim of ID Theft and Fraud perpetrated by the former business partner who created the above legal issues, and is now teamed up with my angry sister. During the time I had a restraining order against my sister, she went to a bank in Rhode Island, gave them false information about me, and bullied them into closing one of my accounts and giving the money to her. I just want the horrible actions still ongoing in my life to stop. Deleting this page would be extremely helpful. I am not important enough to appear at all in Wikipedia. 107.242.117.54 (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Nomination made on behalf of an IP, which was copied from Special:PermaLink/1112305650#Help_me!. I make no claims or statements about the identity of the nominator. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legal woes aside, seems like a well-documented article, most are RS. Interesting history of the individual. Right or wrong, so long as RS are used, we can keep it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is based mostly on a press release, wedding announcements, and primary sources, and the investigations section appears to give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view per WP:BLP1E. I removed the minimally-sourced passport allegation per WP:BLPCRIME because the subject of this article does not appear to be a public figure. WP:GNG/WP:BASIC does not appear to be adequately supported with significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, including based on my own online search. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radical edit required: This article only gives weight to the legal processes surrounding Locke. There are almost no media references that comment upon Jenkins, though formal documents confirm her directorship(s) and the legal processes themseves. Indeed, some are to media home pages where she is not mentioned, and a couple are dead links. At present this has the feeling of a page constructed to attack Jenkins, masquerading as an article. It does appear that Jenkins may be notable in a Wikipedia sense, however. Following a radical edit we will start to see what is what. Because I believe Jenkins to be inherently notable, I default to Keep, certainly at present 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Timtrent, if there "are almost no media references that comment upon Jenkins", what independent and reliable secondary sources support notability? Beccaynr (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As an update, with thanks to Timtrent for highlighting the poor quality of the sourcing in the article, I have attempted to radically edit the article, and it appears that no amount of editing can overcome the lack of notability for this subject. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beccaynr Thank you for your edits. I can also see no RS references. I wonder that I ever could. I am conflicted. I have not altered my 'Keep' !vote because something in my water suggests to me that Jenkins is notable. Even with useless references she just needs to be notable.
    The conflict is that I wish to accede to "someone's" request to take an allegedly incorrect article down, plus I have no idea that the IP is Jenkins, and I also see what verges on a legal threat in the nomination. Stating that an article is libellous suggests action against the alleged libel may be taken or may be threatened. I do not like to see any person prosper from legal threats, but nor do I wish to see a genuine attack page remain here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your follow up, Timtrent - per WP:NLT, It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat, and less charged wording by the nominator would best serve this discussion. With our current inability to confirm their identity, and what seem to be some errant claims about the legal process generally in the nomination statement, I focused on apparent assertions of a lack of notability and (poorly-phrased) WP:BLP policy concerns, although WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME may also be relevant to consider with regard to whether any inherent notability can be supported. Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beccaynr Perhaps I am influenced by the lack of ability to confirm the requestor, coupled with an aversion to legal threats, real or implied. I do not feel we should accede to a random IP;s deletion request.
    Oddly, the IP is creating the Streisand effect in a small way here, which is interesting 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Timtrent, I have no objection to a procedural close of this discussion (without prejudice to a future nomination) due to what could be reasonably understood as a legal threat in the nomination statement. Beccaynr (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beccaynr An uninvolved editor, perhaps admin, should do that. I would support that as a move. Something here has a nasty smell about it, and I am unsure whether it is the article as was, or the nomination. I think it is a useful suggestion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not stop another administrator from closing this, but I will say as the opening administrator that if I had found the "libelous" claim to be anything approaching a legal threat I would have simply blocked the IP and not started this discussion. I believe that a lot of people misunderstand the term, and simply use it to display their displeasure with the current situation (e.g. I have seen some VRTS tickets claim that an incorrect DOB was libellous). Regarding the identity of the IP - if someone points out the inaccuracies in a page, and asks that it be deleted, I do not think it is our job to determine whether they are who they say they are; that aspect really only comes into play for close decisions via WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. A clear "delete" or "keep" result will happen regardless of who nominated the page in the first place. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am now more comfortable with this reaching whatever final outcome it reaches. Thank you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Primefac, I have no doubt you would have blocked, and I was referencing BLPREQUESTDELETE too obliquely with regard to the identity issue in my comment above. As this AfD discussion developed, I became concerned about whether the formation of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS would be impaired to the point that we should just start over, because of the potential for the nomination statement to create an undue influence on the discussion, and perhaps because of dynamics specific to AfD. My thought was if we develop a local consensus of !voters uncomfortable with assessing the article, then that may support a procedural close and starting a new discussion. My neverending to-do list includes renominating AfDs with apparent procedural issues, and I figured I could add this one to the list. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered long and hard and researched Jenkins thoroughly. I can find no sources that refer to anything other than the scandal. It is clear that this took place, the the circunstances surrounding Jenkins in it are less clear. That scandal may itself be worthy of an article (caused by the Streisand effect) but Jenkins is not. She appears to be WP:BLP1E and thus I cannot in all conscience, after research, opine nther than Delete as failing WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Caulfield East, Victoria#Shopping. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caulfield Plaza Shopping Centre[edit]

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

General failing of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A shopping centre with only a few stores is unlikely to be notable unless there is sufficient independent sources validating this, which can't be found. Article is also promotional in tone. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • While, ATD options exist, this article is part of a larger mess, and unilateral WP:BOLD actions may be inappropriate. A newbie editor has mass created several mall articles, with a list of red links suggesting many more to come. At least 5 other articles are already at AfD, with multiple contested ProDs and at least one outstanding ProD. I left a message on the creator's talk page asking them to at least slow down. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As the original creator don't worry I've stopped with the mall articles! In relation to homeco, I'm currently in the process of creating an article for the actual company and not individual centres, based off of community feedback HoHo3143 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of the shopping centre in the article you have suggested as redirect target. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't have to be a mention in the redirect target article. An article on the suburb can validly have content relating to the shopping centres there where the centre is not notable. I don't understand why this is such a problem? Deus et lex (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there needs to be mention in the target article. What use is there to a would-be searcher taking them to an article which doesn't even mention the thing that they searched for. I make no comment on whether such a mention would be appropriate or justified but without a merge or a brief mention then redirection is not appropriate. A7V2 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention can be done later (or in fact, you could easily do it yourself...). A redirection to the suburb article is entirely appropriate - it is a valid alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is a WP:run-of-the-mill mini mall. With zero RS coverage apparent, it too unremarkable to be a plausible search term. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - you haven't shown that the redirect is not inappropriate. The suburb name is an entirely reasonable redirect and the shopping centre could well be a search term. The incessant "run of the mill" quotes every time someone puts up a shopping centre article for AfD is nauseating and no one ever considers alternatives. I don't understand why it is such a big issue to think before just arguing delete. Deus et lex (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Deus et lex: A mini mall with only the most routine directory and transport interest meets the definition of unremarkable. There is nothing to support the term as a significant feature of the proposed target to make it plausible for a Wikipedia search. The article is commercial fluff, and deletion is the cleaner option. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is already content at the proposed redirect target. I am not supportive of keeping the article but Wikipedia has policies that alternatives to deletion must be explored. In this case it has not occurred so redirection is entirely appropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I though this is somewhat notable because of its owner- that being Monash University HoHo3143 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose redirection to Caulfield, Victoria unless mention is added there. No benefit to anyone searching this without content being added. No comment on deletion. A7V2 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "no benefit to anyone" is not a reason for opposing the redirect. You need to show that it's inappropriate. A person typing in the name of the shopping centre can easily be redirected to the suburb. It makes sense and you haven't shown it is not appropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is nothing to show. It is self-evidently inappropriate to redirect something to an article which neither mentions nor discusses that thing. The reasons for a redirect can be found at WP:RPURPOSE, if none of them are met then the burden would be on you to say why it is appropriate (or to point to which purpose is being met in this instance). The reason it is of no benefit (and indeed is actively unhelpful) is because someone searching this will not find any information about what they are looking for. I don't know what you mean by "A person typing in the name of the shopping centre can easily be redirected to the suburb", or how that is relevant. That is all moot if information is added to the target (and the information is appropriate there but I offer no opinion on whether or not this is the case), but this should not be redirected before that happens. As to your comment above about me doing it, I am not the one advocating for redirection. I don't care either way if the content is added to the other article, only that we don't create redirects to inappropriate targets. A7V2 (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is content there now so all of your points are moot anyway. The redirect is now entirely appropriate and should be made. Deus et lex (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Literally not one of my comments are moot as I prefaced with unless, nor is there content "there", but at Caulfield East, Victoria. Also ideally you shouldn't be changing your comments after people have replied without leaving the old part struck for context, per WP:TALK#REVISE. A7V2 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Caulfield East, Victoria. Centre has some notability to the suburb, however I now agree that it isn't worth its own Wikipedia page. HoHo3143 (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in my main comment above I indicated it should be redirected to Caulfield - it should actually be Caulfield East (where there is content) and I have changed my comment above to reflect that. Deus et lex (talk) 02:22, 25 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! 16:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Caulfield East, Victoria#Shopping as the centre is notable in the local community, however the section needs to be expanded upon. HoHo3143 (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect to Caulfield East, Victoria#Shopping where some content from this article was merged. Note that an edit summary mentioning that content was merged should be made for attribution purposes. A7V2 (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment On consideration, no such edit summary is necessary as the same user wrote all of the content of this article. A7V2 (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bohnbeamer: (who reopened the AfD). You should be aware that the AfD was created by me, and legitimately withdrawn. The outcome is leading to a redirect, and was supported by the article's author. You also have five edits to your name, which I find very suspicious. Ajf773 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ajf773: (who closed the AfD against the closure instructions), WP:CLOSEAFD states a nominator can withdraw an AfD, but only
it all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit any ongoing discussion
As votes other than Keep had been cast, withdrawing the nomination was no longer a legitimate option. The only way it can now be closed is by an uninvolved editor. Would have thought somebody who has an extensive involvement in AfDs would be more familiar with the rules. Bohnbeamer (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could still withdraw the AfD and then redirect the article. There's practically no difference. All the responses are leading for the article to be redirected. Perhaps you might like to contribute to this discussion yourself as it it clear to me that don't favour this outcome. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 29 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. I don't think a third relist will help create a consensus here so I'm closing as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of swimming pools in Hungary[edit]

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

Not enough entries to justify a standalone list. There are exactly two entries on this list: Alfréd Hajós National Swimming Stadium and Danube Arena. And the only other article in Category:Swimming venues in Hungary is Debrecen Swimming Pool Complex. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and Hungary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: probably fails WP:LISTN and lacks notability Justiyaya 08:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are now three entries on the list, linking to their own articles. It is a valid navigational and information list. Dream Focus 14:47, 11 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! 08:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply, that's about including phone numbers, opening hours, etc., which this list does not. --Doncram (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains why you shouldn't delete a list just because there is a category. This list article shows far more information than a category can, so is more useful. Its short size is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 23:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DreamFocus is right, including pointing to wp:CLNT. Better to have a list-article, helping to head off creation of stub articles on individual ones, or allowing their redirection to a row in this. Also, a swimming pool is a thing, and it is okay/good to have a list of them split out from main article, and okay to split that list by country. Combining all swimming pool lists would be too big, see Category:Lists of swimming pools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 21:52, September 19, 2022 (UTC)
The list has grown to cover 11 pools at 6 facilities, and there is a draft for a worldwide list at Draft:List of swimming pools which links out to separate lists by country. If it were in mainspace, merging this Hungary list would be a possibility, but this is probably already too large. Discretion has to be left for editors working in the topic area, when to split out vs. merge country lists. --Doncram (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Use categories until more notable names have emerged. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NLIST per DreamFocus and Doncram. User:Georgethedragonslayer: see WP:CLNT. Ingratis (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List is an improvement over categories thanks to the additional infomation in the table and the images. Has been expanded since nomination and so the rationale is no longer relevant. Garuda3 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 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! 17:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gen-Airpark[edit]

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

Non-notable privately owned airport. Despite a major WP:REFBOMB to primary sources, after a search I cannot find a single instance of significant coverage for this airport. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Illinois. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. Most of the article's sources are primary and/or database entries. One is basically a blog post, and there is a couple of passing mentions too. Tl;dr: none of the sources help establish notability. A WP:BEFORE search does not bring anything different. BilletsMauves€500 17:49, 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 merge to Call box. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trackside telephone[edit]

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

Not notable enough to merit a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 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 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! 17:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Air Panas Girls' School[edit]

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

A picture perfect perma stub, if you will, which has effectively been in its current state since the original author got done with it in 2006. I haven't been able to find anything that could count toward notability per WP:NSCHOOL, so I think deletion is the right call. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 16:01, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sananduva (footballer)[edit]

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

Article about footballer who has generally played at a semi-professional level and which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only online coverage in English and Portuguese language sources is routine stuff like transfer announcements and match reports (e.g., [3] or [4]). Note that there is another former footballer/manager named Sananduva born in 1979 that is notable, so you have to filter out coverage of him when searching. Jogurney (talk) 15:46, 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) 15:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ein (Aphmau character)[edit]

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

I see no reliable sources discussing the character → fails WP:GNG. Paradoctor (talk) 15:42, 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 redirect to Gillespie Dam. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gillespie, Arizona[edit]

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

The only coverage of Gillespie that I could find was a 1919 article in the Copper Era promising the upcoming construction of a townsite, however it doesn't appear that anything beyond a rail siding was ever actually built at this spot. I did find one article about a "town" which turned out to be a glorified work camp for the Gillespie Dam, 12 miles away, a different topic entirely that should be covered in the article about the dam. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Well, I enjoyed reading about the Dam and Frank Gillespie at least. I did find a mention of Gillespie, Arizona in a 2011 solar farm proposal (that seems to be referring to approximately the same geographic area west of the dam), but the actual documentation refers to townships, which makes me wonder if they just pulled "Gillespie, Arizona" from Google Maps (who pulled it from Wikidata, presumably). Plenty of mentions of other people named Gillespie in the Arizona Memory Project, but from a quick sample I couldn't find any references to a town or other place where people actually lived. Suriname0 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gillespie Dam. I found a few articles like this that refer to the Gillespie Land and Irrigation Company and/or the associated ranch/farm being in "Gillespie, Arizona". I added info about the town there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect to Gillespie Dam. Gillespie seems to have been a paper town, nothing more. Neither the 1925 Rand McNally Premiere Atlas of the World nor the 1960 World Book atlas of Arizona give population figures or even list Gillespie in their list of communities, and each of those sources list Arizona settlements down into the single digits. There never was a community here, and MB's addition of the plans for the community on Gillespie Dam seems sufficient. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gillespie Dam per above. Djflem (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kapila Dareeju[edit]

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

WP:PROD was challenged so bringing this to AfD.

Cricketer fails WP:NCRIC which only seems to cover international level. Non-international cricket is delt with by WP:OFFICIALCRICKET, however sri lanka first-class cricket is not on the list of notable first-class cricket so they also fail WP:OFFICIALCRICKET.

Outside of that, this cricketer played a single game for Moors Sports Club and seems to have generated no further coverage. Are they really notable? Carver1889 (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Carver1889 (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does this individual fail guidelines these days? I see Sri Lankan domestic competitions aren't on the list of recognized tournaments on the men's domestic trophies section. Which seems strange, as I'm assuming this could lead to mass-deletions of almost every non-Test playing Sri Lankan domestic cricketer... Bobo. 15:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not feign ignorance. As you are well aware, having participated in many of the relevant discussions (and complained many times about the consensus results), only international cricketers for Test playing nations meet WP:NCRIC/WP:NSPORT, and all sports biographies must demonstrate at least one instance of significant coverage in a reliable (non-database) source that is independent of the subject – and ultimately GNG/BASIC must be met, so reasonable evidence that multiple instances exist should be shown at AFD. There is also an easy alternative to deletion in most of these cases, but it would require interested parties to create appropriate lists. Absent of that happening, WP really doesn't lose anything by deleting these database entry mirrors. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When at least half a dozen serial content creators have given up on the project, is it any wonder that we're confused when the goalposts are moved? I stopped paying attention a long time ago...I've been suggesting lists for years and it's only now that this is happening that people are considering it necessary. As for "interested parties", it's not the content creators who have made this necessary. Bobo. 19:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Couldn't find any sources except the Cricinfo profile. Fails WP:GNG by a long margin, I am afraid. Chanaka L (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the absence of a suitable redirect. Unless List of Moors Sports Club cricketers is created, I'm not seeing a suitable redirect here. The subject fails GNG from what I can see in a google search, and with only one FC game in what we know as a tournament that doesn't gain too much coverage that is accessible, it's unlikely there's anything else out there. If someone creates the list in the week or so the AfD exists, let me know. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hitting random in a WP:O catergory has given me another couple of similar cricket pages I ignored while this AfD was in progress. I don’t want to unnecessarily use AfD if an alternative exists but don’t understand how the redirect to lists avoids WP:NOTDATABASE. I don’t want to bring that into this discussion but if you have a link to somewhere this was previously discussed/ policy I haven't seen it would be appreciated. Thanks, Carver1889 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been local policy to redirect to a list page if a player is deemed to fail WP:GNG as a valid WP:ATD. The Cricket WikiProject is one of the most complete of all the projects, and with the NSPORTS changes it has been agreed that redirect to lists is the preferred choice if their is a suitable target, and then adding prose to the lists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly calling our project anywhere near "complete" is a route we can never go down. But you cannot blame content creators for that. In theory, we could make the cricket project "complete" just by writing a skeleton article for every first-class cricketer, as it is there are thousands of cricketers missing. I'll come back to 02blythed, the way that they were treated while contributing articles was absolutely disgusting - looking through their overall contributions sees them having created 561 articles all told in just two short bursts of editing in 2007-08 and 2016-17. I hate the way they were so obviously bullied off the project. Bobo. 19:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD-M, for example, applies here - we can use tables or notes, for example, to add a little detail about a person to a list. If they're appropriate for fictional characters, they're certainly appropriate for people like this I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Moors Sports Club per WP:ATD-R or merge into it per WP:ATD-M. WP:ATD is part of deletion policy. In the absence of an actual list, the club article will suffice. BoJó | talk UTC 20:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this is such a comprehensively insignificant player in the clubs history, any kind of mention in the club article would be grossly WP:UNDUE and without a mention there a redirect would be inappropriate and unhelpful. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG/BASIC due to a total lack of significant coverage. No appropriate merge/redirect target. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Jackson[edit]

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

Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 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 keep. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ali Express[edit]

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

Two sources, one a blog. Unsure this passes wp:n, ther are also serious neutrality issues (hardly a surprise given the lack of sourcing). Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Internet. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep to Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Here is another ref. Changed !vote in view of much improved referencing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per General notability guideline: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." In this case only one source is reliable. The blog, Tikun Olam, has a mixed record of reliability. It is not possible to base a balanced article on one or two sources writing about a specific aspect, in this case it's relationship with Israeli intelligence. TFD (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability; I had only added two sources because it was a first edit, but I have just added five other sources that confirm that (as said in the Hebrew Wikipedia version of the article), as of September 2022, it is the Telegram channel with the most views per post in Israel[1], and stories first published by Abu Ali Express have been often reproduced in the mainstream Israeli media, including in Maariv,[2] Globes,[3] Ynet,[4] Arutz Sheva,[5] as well as on Israeli television.[6] Dan Palraz (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 'In May 2021, during the Israeli-Gaza war, the channel hit a record of 6.7 million views per day, posting many exclusive articles during the fighting, which were then cited by many media outlets.[3]' That shows that it has extraordinary influence. Several sources have since been added. Deletion is not an option because the mediatic angle figures as influential as an instrument of psychological warfare. Merge of course is an option, but I suggest this is the kind of article that has an intrinsic interest, and merits some patience to give the editor time to strengthen its sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep; article has been greatly expanded since this nomination. The Middle East Eye source (link) has not yet been added, though, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article in question has been expanded, and now seems to meet notability guidelines. Still needs some polishing though. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New sources added:

  1. ^ telemetrio.io. "Popular channels by Israel". telemetr.io. Retrieved 2022-09-27.
  2. ^ "חיזבאללה מכחישים: לא הייתה כוונה לתקוף את ישראל - תגובה תגיע בהמשך". www.maariv.co.il. Retrieved 2022-09-27.
  3. ^ ברקוביץ', אורי (2020-07-06). ""בחלק מהמפעלים לא מבינים מה מתקפות סייבר קשורות אליהם"". Globes. Retrieved 2022-09-27.
  4. ^ אברהמי, זאב; פולין (2022-02-28). ""לא נשאיר אף אחד מאחור": יממה עם מחלצי הישראלים באוקראינה". Ynet (in Hebrew). Retrieved 2022-09-27.
  5. ^ פייגלין, אריאל (2020-10-13). "חמשת ערוצי הטלגרם שאתם צריכים להכיר". ערוץ 7 (in Hebrew). Retrieved 2022-09-27.
  6. ^ "אבו עלי אקספרס". Telegram. Retrieved 2022-09-27.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of words of disputed pronunciation[edit]

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

I cant think of sensible criteria for inclusion in what is a potentially ridiculously large list. You say tomato... TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I just wanted to create a base for this page, which could be built upon. However, I discovered this page, which I believe is essentially the same thing as what I have, but better. I am perfectly fine with my page being deleted, but I believe that "List of words of disputed pronunciation" should be removed from the Most Wanted Page List. The Forgotten Lord: Term63 14:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Massive, massive potential scope that is not feasible for a list (WP:SALAT). Plus, "disputed" is a somewhat loaded word for alternate pronunciations that opens up a prescriptivist can of worms we really don't need to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic enough. Mukt (talk) 19:04, 30 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) 14:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Frosty[edit]

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

This doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER imho. Almost all of the coverage is about his death, and I'm not sure if his death is a notable event. Comments please! ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's got brief coverage at grammy.com [5] but that's about all. He wasn't notable as a musician, no charted songs that I can see. Sad, but non-notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering he was with the Empire label and released 2 albums on the label (1 posthumous) wouldn't he pass notability per 5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable) of WP:NSINGER. The coverage about his death also present him as an already notable figure, calling him by his artist name and citing his popularity. Célestin Denis (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Empire is not so much a label as it is a client distribution service. It is used by both major labels and unsigned, independent contractors as a way of getting their music out on their own dime. That appears to be the case for this artist. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has the topic of people gaining coverage from their death being announced been brought up in the past? I thought there might be precedent for this after seeing Technoblade, who had no prehumous coverage in reliable sources get an article only citing sources announcing his passing. Does death falls into WP:BLP1E? Célestin Denis (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Célestin Denis: The sources that talk about Technoblade's death go in depth about him and discuss his impact as a YouTuber. The sources covering Sad Frosty's death do not have that same level of coverage. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although the coverage might not be the same, the sources mentioning Sad Frosty's death also mention his popularity as a rapper, his collaborations, the albums he released, his promotional use of TikTok, etc. Enough information surrounding his career comes from those reliable sources covering his death. Célestin Denis (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"On TikTok, he posted comedy clips and behind-the-scenes footage of him filming music videos", as found in the Insider piece is not in-depth coverage. Whether there's enough to write about is not the argument. Wikipedia has notability guidelines, and Sad Frosty doesn't meet them. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Célestin Denis: pinging —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the previous ping, hit the button on accident. I don't see how Sad Frosty doesn't fit criteria 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Célestin Denis (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Célestin Denis: the articles need to be about the person though, not an event that happened to them. I created an article on Kenneth Petty (look it up), which got deleted because he's only notable for one event. Do you see what I'm getting at here? —VersaceSpace 🌃 00:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator, he only gained recognition because of his death. He wasn't wikipedia standard notable at all and his songs don't make it any better.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"his songs don't make it any better.", that sounds like a biased opinion. Célestin Denis (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I mean, it is true that his songs don't make it any better. My eyes almost rolled back into my brain after seeing "CARDIBDRUGGEDME" on his Spotify page. It doesn't seem like there was any coverage about Sad Frosty prior to his death. Criteria 5 of WP:NMUSICIAN doesn't apply because Empire is not a major label (Warner, UMG, Sony). —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ref (chew)(do) 18:39, 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. ✗plicit 00:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thor 3D[edit]

Thor 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No indication of coverage outside specialist sources, which are generally not enough to contribute to WP:NCORP. Ovinus (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Devonian Wombat. Andre🚐 16:58, 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 redirect to Collabro#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Is Here (Collabro album)[edit]

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

Sources on page are all primaries/commercial save for the charting. Only coverage I could find was this review (doubtful reliability) and this interview (which appears to be about the lead single more than the album itself, though I haven't listened to confirm). There's other coverage around the tour of the same name but none of them mention the album in more than passing. OfficialCharts.com is giving me trouble so I can't check the charting right now, but I suspect it wasn't for more than a week on each given the low peaks. Redirect to Collabro#Albums. QuietHere (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree, no reliable independent coverage. If the critics didn't think the album was worth reviewing, then it is not notable. The album was the band's least successful release so far. It can be mentioned, of course, in the band's own article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One week on the UK 100. And here's the next week's Scottish chart where you can see it is absent (but it was there the previous week). Charting is insignificant after all. QuietHere (talk) 20:04, 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. Sandstein 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Devaa[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. All citations are simply database sites. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 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. Sandstein 15:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Meltzer (writer)[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Meltzer (writer) ended with no consensus because two votes dismissed it given the sockpuppet account behind the nomination, but without much else for arguments. The point was raised about being an award recipient but with a counterargument that neither award are themself significant enough to count toward an ANYBIO pass. Tagging Kevin Winzer, BilletsMauves, and Extraordinary Writ, my fellow non-sock participants in the prior AfD. My argument remains the same (only one source for SIGCOV) though with the added note that the article is also an ORPHAN, and I'm also changing my vote to redirect to Dave Meltzer (the sports journalist, which is a type of writing); my initial participation in the first AfD was based on assuming it was about him anyway. QuietHere (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that David Meltzer (poet) may also be a good redirect target, though with the note that I haven't reviewed the page any further than the not-so-promising Template:RefImprove tag at the top. QuietHere (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction to an above statement: Only one of the two keep votes mentioned the sockpuppet issue. Both of them called the nomination bad faith but not for the same reason (the other was the ANYBIO argument based on the awards). QuietHere (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason as in the first AfD: I don't think either of the listed awards are "well-known and significant" for purposes of WP:ANYBIO: the Ellis Island Medal of Honor has thousands of recipients, and the Variety "Sports Humanitarian of the Year" does not appear to be a noteworthy honor. The Forbes article linked above is unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. The remaining sources cited in the article all appear to be unreliable/non-independent or only passing mentions, and my search for GNG-qualifying coverage didn't turn up anything that is independent (not, e.g., an interview or press release), is reliable, and discusses Meltzer in detail. Not notable, as far as I can tell. I'm not averse to a redirect, but since there's both a poet and a journalist (either of whom could be described as a writer but neither of whom commonly is described as a writer) in addition to the subject of this AfD, I think it'd cause more trouble than it's worth. If we do decide to redirect, it should probably be to the David Meltzer disambiguation page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't think of the dab page, that's honestly a great point and an even better target which I'm in support of. QuietHere (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete b/c there's no evidence of notability. And with regards to the awards, they are both not overly notable and unrelated to the subject's writing and producing of TV shows. Since the subject's claim to fame is with regards to writing and producing TV shows, In my opinion these awards don't qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (people) b/c they are unrelated to that.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename it to David Meltzer (executive). He is not a full-time writer/producer rather is known for his contributions in sports industry, founding Sports1 with Warren Moon and a major contributor to the development PC-EPhone, a notable device which was a forerunner to smartphone (founded a NYT article). So, a coverage related to his work as a CEO of major companies must exist in the newspapers' archives - one have to lookup. Combined notability passes WP:GNG imo. 142.126.241.149 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His name is only mentioned twice in passing at the end of that article and it isn't talking about him as a person. Even if the phone is notable, that doesn't mean he is. See WP:INHERIT for that. Same goes for the company. I would support the rename if there was a GNG pass, but you haven't actually provided the coverage needed to earn that pass and you can't just proclaim that cover "must exist" without actually searching for and linking to it. That's not a safe assumption. QuietHere (talk) 23:22, 1 October 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 article is notable. AfD is not cleanup. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queeristan[edit]

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

Written by a non-notable author. References are interviews of the author himself, including a reference of the book from its own Google book listing! Fails WP:NBOOK. Haueirlan (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already provided 2 review of the books from 2 different news paper. So according to WP:NBOOK the subject is meeting criteria. Samir Bishal (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From when did B2C and B2B magazines started publishing book reviews on LGBTQ topics? Anyway, the review from MoneyControl.com is a contributor post, not by staff reporter and the other link is simply unreliable. Sorry, none of the criteria of WP:NBOOK is meeting here. Haueirlan (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Article can pass WP:NBOOK but as it stands it is not suitable for mainspace. Needs more material than just two quotes from book reviews. I was able to find more sources and material including some really great reaction videos and longer reviews. I think drafting is a good compromise here. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 11:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the article can pass the Wikipedia book guidelines and as you say merely needs improvement, then it should never have been brought up for an AfD in the first place. An AfD isn't a forum for how an article can be improved and the notability of an article's subject exists separate from the state the article is in. As such, drafting isn't a good compromise, it's merely another bad route to take in all this. This AfD should be closed as a keep and then if people want to improve the article they can.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Samir Bishal stated, this book easily meets notability guidelines. In addition to the citations shared by Samir Bishal a quick search also turned up articles focused on this book in GQ India, Vogue India, and many more places. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:48, 30 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) 09:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S'portable Scoreboards[edit]

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

No sources; Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP Assirian cat (talk) 09:41, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kumari Sweta[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to fulfil WP:SINGER. Majority of the "sources" links to YouTube or the subject's own page on respective streaming platforms. Infobox states she won a Best Singer award but isn't sourced. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and India. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete multiple reliable sources are not found. Delete per nom's arguments. Assirian cat (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being a violation of WP:PROMO (i'd even wonder if WP:CSD#G11 could apply here). The article author may well be the subject themselves, such is the extent of the promotional inclusion of external links and uploading an image of what is purported to be the subject of the article as their own work. The inclusion of "best singer" (largely meaningless without context) in the infobox may be an underhand attempt to avoid WP:CSD#A7, but I agree with nom that this person doesn't seem to pass WP:SINGER. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources found. Appears PROMO as above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nothing in the article's sourcing that establishes notability nor could I find any. The article is promotional complete with a huge link farm. Whpq (talk) 03:46, 28 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! 07:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeveshu Ahluwalia[edit]

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

Notability issues need to be addressed. RPSkokie (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete as the sources are scarce, and passing mentions. --Assirian cat (talk) 10:13, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 13:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CoCo (band)[edit]

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

unsourced article written in promotional tone. trying to find sources leads to another band named coco. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 02:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 02:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Japanese article has some offline sources which from the titles could possibly be sigcov. Jumpytoo Talk 03:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Japanese Wikipedia shows that their first 10 singles ranked within the top 10 on Oricon, and their following singles ranked within the top 40. Here's the link to their Oricon profile, but you might have to pay to access archives of their old rankings since the band was active in the early 1990s. lullabying (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @lullabying: oricon is a database, not useful for establishing notability. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 04:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oricon isn't just a database. It also releases numbers for sales on CDs and books; it's also the national music chart in Japan. lullabying (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Keep and improve. Three top-10 albums and ten top-10 singles, but before the internet era. Oricon is the main national chart in Japan, so contrary to the comment on Oricon's status as a database, the rankings do help show that this group passes WP:BAND. A significant number of sources should be available on paper in Japanese. Dekimasuよ! 04:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dekimasu: that's a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 08:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your point to some extent! I said that additional sources exist without contributing them. I am sure there are other editors who know more about the music of this period than I do. However, notability is already established on the basis of the Oricon cite, which shows that the group passes WP:BAND #2 and #5. The Japanese Wiki notes a special on public television in Japan, which passes #12. And then separately, I am saying that I am sure this will also pass #1 (multiple, non-trivial published sources), #4 (national tour), #11 (national rotation), etc. if someone is able to dig up the sources. That comment probably indicates my doubt that WP:BEFORE could have been done sufficiently here without the ability to read Japanese. We should try to avoid systemic bias in coverage, and most problems with narrowing down sources in English could probably be solved by adding "Japan" or the name of a group member. Dekimasuよ! 11:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First quick check shows that the national newspaper Mainichi Shimbun's December 20, 1989 edition (page 15, evening edition, 「ユーミンが５６億円で売り上げトップ　８９年レコードセールス大賞」) lists CoCo as top 3 in the yearly Nihon Record Sales Awards for the newcomer category, with 120,000 sales of their single "Equal Romance". Dekimasuよ! 11:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are many top chart singles. pre-web era is indeed a problem now for establishing CoCo's notability, but it definitely shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Assirian cat (talk) 10:10, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KSI vs Swarmz and KSI vs Luis Alcaraz Pineda[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A quick before shows the article is riddled with unreliable sources, and primary sources. Google results showed up routine coverage from a few sports sites. If anyone can uncover some significant, and or in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG, I would be happy to withdraw. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 06:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing how this is remotely notable. There's fights all the time, and if we were to list every sporting match, we'd never finish. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd argue that two fights in the same night is not all that common, so I'd say it deserves to stay up. Plus, KSI's other, less notable fights are also on here, and the same can be said for many others. 20Hydrax04 (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What other "less notable" fights would you be referring to? KSI's fights with Logan Paul received in-depth and significant coverage through prominent British newspapers and sports sites. This event does not seem to have any significant coverage. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 15:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event was a huge success, had a lot of promotion and coverage and was a massive success on DAZN being one of the most streamed events on the website, so it is more than notable and recognised. RedactedUser300 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources please, or we can't keep it. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see some participation from veteran editors on this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/Merge, the article seems to pass the general notability guidelines though some of the sources currently in the article seem to be unreliable or primary sources. Sahaib (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Widely promoted is useful, but not an RS. We need to see news sources covering it. I'm not finding much of anything. This is about the best, it's mostly confirming who's fighting and when it happens. [6]. Like half a GNG source. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage in reliable sources. These fight cards seem to be a bunch of non-boxers making their debuts in search of publicity. Fight announcements and reporting of results do not show WP notability. If someone can show that WP:GNG is met please let me know, otherwise this just looks promotional to me. I don't see how it meets WP:NEVENT since it doesn't have "enduring historical significance", "a significant lasting effect" (WP:LASTING), nor does it have "widespread impact" that is "widely covered in diverse sources". Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like Oaktree, not seeing nearly enough RS coverage, despite the tendency for these events to get overhyped, which would only make us be more stringent in our sourcing requirements. Ovinus (talk) 05:46, 27 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 this article, and accept the draft. I actually stumbled up on the draft as part of AfC patrol but wasn't able to accept it, which is how I found this discussion. This is slightly early, but consensus is clear that the improvements to the draft rendered the nomination moot. Please give me a moment to complete the swap as I also think it pertinent to merge the histories for attribution purposes. Star Mississippi 00:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Dawson[edit]

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

Jean Dawson

Singer who does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. The article does not speak for itself, and only says that he exists, so notability depends on the references. Two of them are interviews, and the other two are about albums rather than about him.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 complex.com An interview No Yes Yes No
2 essence.com An interview No Yes Yes No
3 earmilk.com Announcement of album Yes Not about the subject Yes No
4 nme.com Review of an album Yes Not about the subject; yes about the album Yes Yes

There is also a draft, Draft:Jean Dawson, which I have reviewed and declined. The draft contains more information than the article but does not establish notability. The subject likely is notable, but neither the article nor the draft establishes notability. There was a previous AFD that was closed on 27 August as Merge. The closer had a difficult task because the participants seemed to imply more coverage than is shown. The article now has a tag on it saying that it should be merged into the draft, but there is nothing to merge because the article has no information that is not in the draft, and neither the draft nor the article establishes notability. Either the article should be deleted and editors should be asked to improve and resubmit the draft, or the article can be expanded within seven days to be better than the current draft for a Heymann close. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article; Approve the Draft: The draft seems to easily meet GNG, and my own WP:BEFORE search revealed tons of sources from indie music magazines and websites, some of which are already cited on the draft. Just delete the current page to make way for the already mainspace-ready draft. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, approve the draft: Not the draft creator but I put a lot of editing work into it so of course I want it kept, but I'll also back up Why? I Ask's search. There's plenty of coverage of the artist, not all of which made it into the draft because I was still working on it when some random IP editor clicked the submit button for no apparent reason. I do think the coverage is available to bring that draft to notability, and either way the plan from the previous AfD was to clean that up to replace the mainspace article which was an unsourced, underwritten mess to begin with. The draft had way more information in it already which would be way more useful; unfortunately most of the specific claims in there I couldn't find sourcing for so I had to cut a bunch, but I think what's there is still good. And, again, there's more coverage to add which I'll start working in now. QuietHere (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished another significant expansion of the draft, would definitely be worth another look, please and thank you. QuietHere (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon went ahead and resubmitted after my previous expansion, hope that's okay. QuietHere (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, but approve the draft: per Why? I Ask. DizzyTheMan (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teabox[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private. Significant RS coverage not found; sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Kiranhota with no other contributions outside this topic; then edited by SPAs such as Special:Contributions/Samvit1 and others. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoldMiner24, you say "Delete" but the rationale you provided looks like it is a vote to Keep this article and improve it. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, I realize my comment is pretty confusing. I was on the fence on this one. Let me change my comment. GoldMiner24 Talk 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There is some coverage of the article's subject but I think it fails WP:GNG. If kept, the article could definitely be improved as it feels like a promotion for the company. GoldMiner24 Talk 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Article subject is a Too Soon. --Gabrielt@lk 00:01, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_September_25&oldid=1113923357"