Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 05	September 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Luhansk People's Republic#Government and politics. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State anthem of the Luhansk People's Republic[edit]

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

Fails general notability guidelines. No reliable secondary sources, since at least May 2022. —Michael Z. 23:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Ukraine. —Michael Z. 23:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment for all of what it is, can't it go under the main Luhansk article? This isn't Oh Canada, it's an anthem for a country that may or may not exist, depending on who you talk to. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s already mentioned there, although it’s inclusion would still be dubious without proper sourcing. The quantity of text in this article is certainly not warranted for inclusion, and should not be merged into other articles. It’s an “anthem” for an entity that’s supported by wartime propaganda, and to include material based on advocacy rather than on WP:reliable sources is to participate in it. —Michael Z. 20:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable independent sources are found that devote significant coverage to this anthem. Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just prior to my creation of the article, the LPR page featured a (then) red link to it with an ruwiki link next to it...I had thought that was meant to encourage article creation. Oh wells... I am not exactly sure of the point of reinstating the red link and pointing casual readers to the Russian wiki again, though I can understand why this article is being subjected to AFD. Seloloving (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No shade. Existence or absence of red links neither confirms nor denies that such an article would qualify under the WP:GNG. If this article is deleted, then the red link should be removed. If sources are later found that warrant an article, red links can be restored, and a proper article begun. —Michael Z. 20:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Michael Z. If this article is deleted, then the red link should be removed. Inter language links exist to aid readers when we do not yet have an article, but they are not intended to circumvent local Notability policy when a subject is known or believed to be non-notable. That issue will presumably be established by this AFD. Alsee (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seloloving, WP:Red links are indeed intended to encourage article creation. Unfortunately anyone can create such links (or cross language links) at will, with no quality check and little cleanup. It sucks that you got caught by this. It's always vital to gather several solid sources before starting work on a new article. Alsee (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly, I agree too. I have preserved the article locally and will try to reinstate it with better sources if and when they arise. Presently too much homework on my plate for time to write an entire article at the moment. I have actually gathered more sources on the DPR anthem, but will hold off it for the present. Seloloving (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 Author requests deletion. Article created by Seloloving,[1] delete vote by Seloloving.[2] This can be closed by any Admin immediately. Alsee (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note This page is not eligible for G7 speedy deletion due to substantive contributions by other users. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainstream sources are yet to provide any coverage to this anthem. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luhansk People's Republic#Government and politics. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luhansk People's Republic#Government and politics as valid alternative to deletion and likely search term. czar 04:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NM - no mainstream sources, no recognition as an independent nation, and no charting of the single or song. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 13 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Vigar[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV on the person, so this fails WP:NSPORTS by extension of failing WP:GNG. Sole source is a database entry. SWinxy (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. SWinxy (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he gets significant coverage across several pages in the book Double Headers, which I have added to the article. Yet another example of how we might presume notability for first-class cricketers, because - quite mysteriously - it turns that there are (often quite obscure) books discussing them. It makes me think there will be more, especially if we can look offline. St Anselm (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that make Vigar suddenly notable? With one paragraph? That is what you consider significant coverage? SWinxy (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, he's mentioned on several different pages of the book, not just the one I cited. St Anselm (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One whole source doesn't make him notable, noteworthy maybe. Nothing for GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: how about six sources? BD2412 T 07:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure of his suitability for Wikipedia but here's a few things I've come across. He might be more notable as a footballer, he played for Norwich City as a professional in the mid 1900s. He's pictured in a team photo in The Norwich City story : 90 years of the Canaries on camera. His marriage was reported in a local newspaper and gave a lot of biographical details and a photo but suggests that he only played for Surrey 2nd XI but said he "had a distinguished career both as a cricketer and a footballer"; his death was also reported in a local newspaper and again stated that he played for Surrey 2nd XI Piecesofuk (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 2nd XI makes sense - the book I added to the article was all about how Surrey was in the unusual situation of playing two first class matches at the same time - Vigar was certainly the second choice keeper (after Herbert Strudwick). St Anselm (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough here in both his cricket career and his footballing career for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two sources. SWinxy (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
not making any argument here but two sources are multiple. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this point. Sources can clearly be found. A Newspapers.com search for "H. E. Vigar" from 1899 to 1912 yields over 250 hits, most specifically describing Vigar's play in sporting matches, some in great detail. BD2412 T 04:42, 14 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) 23:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SupaStishun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Survived AfD in 2012 but notability seems marginal at best to me. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LLC would imply WP:CORP, which he doesn't meet. Next to nothing for sources in the article and none found, appears largely promotional, with a source close to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the four "references" in the article verify the content. Two furnish 404 errors, one is a Wikipedia article that does not mention this person, and the other goes to a website that also does not mention this person. The flagrantly promotional, non-neutral language could be corrected in theory, but I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources about this person. Cullen328 (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not supported by independent reliable sources. NMasiha (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches across Google and other search engines do not turn any helpful material. That's to say, the subject fails WP:GNG and other relevant subjective criteria. I'm not sure if anything exists outside internet but I'm not sure. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 00:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ubaldo Buttafava[edit]

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

Italian extra-parliamentary politician of whom we know almost nothing, if not his Communist and pro-Albanian political position. From a Google search, his name appears several times, but no source seems to prove the relevance of this person. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 13 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 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a promotional article. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kayadu Lohar[edit]

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

Kayadu Lohar

Actress who does not satisfy either general notability or acting notability. The only reference is to IMDB, which is not a reliable source, and is a database entry. This page is a biography of a living person but has no footnotes. An earlier version of this article was created in article space, but was correctly moved to draft space by User:Spiderone, so that this cannot be moved to draft space. The version in draft space has more information, but also has more puffery. This page does not even have enough information to be a useful stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedily, per G11 ideally) as promotional without any assertion of notability. It looks like we both nominated this at the same time for some kind of deletion! CSD A7 may apply too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is poorly referenced. Catfurball (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find notable sources identifying her as notable. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 22:40, 6 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. No disagreement that the sources found in the discussion meet WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Higgins (politician)[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Northampton Mayor Mary Clare Higgins set to leave office after near-record tenure (MassLive, 2011) is significant in-depth coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC - there is also discussion of her career development in Driscoll, Robert. "The Political Evolution of Northampton, Massachusetts" Historical Journal of Massachusetts Vol. 33, Iss. 2, (Summer 2005) (via ProQuest), including but not limited to, "Mary Clare Higgins ran for City Councilor At-Large for the first time in 1993 [...] Mary Clare Higgins, presented herself as a very progressive candidate. She actively campaigned for Mary Ford." (She won, and is noted in the article as the current mayor). She is also noted in Ghaziani, Amin. "Lesbian Geographies" Contexts: Understanding People in Their Social Worlds Vol. 14, Iss. 1, (Winter 2015): 62-64 (via ProQuest) ("The bucolic town—“where the coffee is strong and so are the women” — had a lesbian mayor, Mary Clare Higgins, who held a near-record tenure of political office— six consecutive two-year terms." In Mitchell, Kathleen. "Progress in Paradise" BusinessWest Vol. 26, Iss. 4, (Jun 22, 2009) (via ProQuest), business development is discussed, including "The idea for the consortium was generated by Mayor Mary Clare Higgins in December 2006." And there is a study on campaign spending (OCPF STUDY: ONE IN THREE MAYORAL CANDIDATES WHO SPENT MORE ON CAMPAIGNS LOST, 2008 via ProQuest) that includes "Mayor Mary Clare Higgins won her contest in Northampton spending just a nickel per vote." There is also this: Friends and foes credit departing Northampton Mayor Mary Clare Higgins with a job well done (MassLive, 2011), which includes mention of what she was planning to do afterwards. Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC Djflem (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. This article iswas in poor shape. I can see why it was nominated for deletion, as it lacks any statement about why the subject is notable (aside from holding office). That said, Beccaynr has identified many helpful sources that satisfy WP:BASIC and also include arguments for notability which could be easily incorporated into the article. ~~If the article is kept, I suggest notifying Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red, where we should be able to quickly find help in fixing the article.~~ Cielquiparle (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article is looking so much better! Nice work @Djflem and @TJMSmith. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - plenty of sources beyond the typical small-town mayor. Passes WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 13 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –LordPeterII (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lee (swimmer)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Has competed in the Olympics, but not won anything. There is currently one usable source given in the article under External links, but I could find nothing else. But a single source does not sound like "significant coverage" to me, so I'm nominating. –LordPickleII (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. –LordPickleII (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sri Lanka at the 2008 Summer Olympics#Swimming. My searches also didn't turn up SIGCOV that would warrant a stand-alone article, but he is discussed at the proposed redirect destination. Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote withdrawn now that SIGCOV has been added to the article as required by WP:SPORTBASIC. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This says Lee was a multiple time medalist at the 2006 South Asian Games. These other sources [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7] all demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and this article therefore clearly meets WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that does it. Man, I actually tried to do a WP:BEFORE, but I couldn't find these sources, probably because of the "generic" name. How did you do it, @Sportsfan 1234? And also, how do I withdraw my nomination again? –LordPeterII (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC requires that there be SIGCOV in the article. If at least one of the examples cited by [[User:Sportsfan 1234] is added to the article, I'll withdraw my "redirect" vote as well. Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used "swimming" "Sri Lanka" with the name of the swimmer. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, I don't know how to withdraw the nom... This should be Speedy Keep, no need to drag this on. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah nevermind, found it. Will be my first closure, hopefully I don't mess up... –LordPeterII (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against a clean re-nomination if deemed necessary Star Mississippi 00:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAP Research[edit]

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

~~There is no significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DavidEfraim (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was thinking about redirecting to SAP; but then if you typed SAP Research, even getting no exact result in search your first suggestion would be SAP. So no need for a redirect; and since the article contains not much of value besides the marketing babbling, a merge would yield nothing either. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SAP Research was quite a substantial organizational unit of SAP (400 employees, hundreds of millions of public funds raised AFAIK) but as its own org unit it was shutdown and now there is somehow SAP Innovation. So what I think should happen is that someone with the appropriate interest (not me!) should write an article with citations on the now historic-defunct SAP research of past times. Don't know whether that's notable (I think it is) but this remains to be seen once someone put in the work to write the article ;-) Dirk Riehle (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Riehle: Good to see some original article creators are still around, and I'm sorry your article got nominated. However, I think that your point is flawed here: This article got nominated, as DavidEfraim pointed out above, because no reliable sources could be found about it. It might be that the organization is large, generates a lot of money – but still fails WP:GNG (or WP:CORP) because we have no sources about them. As it stands, the article has only some refs who are by SAP, which is not WP:INDEPENDENT. So if you want to keep this article, you need to present reasonable evidence that someone else will be able to fix the article (you are right that it doesn't have to be you). So, in order to solidify your vote, please find and present some quality sources, as I couldn't. If I had been able to, I would have voted keep. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. ~~Keep~~ Bad faith nom by a sock HighKing⁺⁺ 19:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Out of curiosity, is this standard procedure? I see now that the nominatior was a sock; but I still believe this article clearly fails a WP:N check. Should such nominations be treated differently than regular noms? I mean, it would be kinda strange to have deletions fail simply because they were initiated by socks, which would go through if nominated by regular editors. –LordPickleII (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LordPeterII, in my opinion if it isn't standard procedure, it should be. We are under siege by socks - either writing articles for cash or blackmailing companies to remove negative information. We've sock farms fighting among each other. I couldn't be bothered to reward a sock. If the article comes to a different editor's attention and is nominated, then I'll look at it. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Fair enough, I guess it's a stance to take. Somewhat offtopic: If you are bothered by socks this much, you might be interested in the RfC about the upcoming ArbCom elections, where denying votes to socks is being discussed: See here. –LordPickleII (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, heading straight over there. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since a non-sock supported deletion, we cannot keep the article just because a sock was the nominator. We should return to checking on if this passes GNG or an appropriate SNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:55, 6 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Wridt[edit]

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

No apparent Notability. I searched Google for this name and found nothing useful. The article cites two sources, one clearly not a Reliable Source, and the other unlikely to be RS:

bjjheroes.com/about clealy self-identifies as a WP:SELFPUBLISHed fan site.
jiujitsutimes.com says they have an ABOUT US page, but it doesn't appear to exist. A Google search on jiujitsutimes gives no indication that it has any reputation for anything, no indication of significance or reliability. It's a Wordpress site. As best I can tell I think it's promotional extension of bjjfanatics.com, which is in the business of martial-arts training camps.

Note: Category:People awarded a red belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu contains 16 people, 10 of whom are members of the family of the founder of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. I haven't investigated further, but this smells like promotional editing. Alsee (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Alsee (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-existant sourcing, only from jiujitsutimes.com. Even news of his passing isn't found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no evidence of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The entire article is basically a repost of the bjjheroes.com article, a site anyone can contribute to. There's no supporting evidence of BJJ competitive success and a high rank is generally not considered sufficient for martial arts notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 12 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 R.E.B.E.L.S.#Second team. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wildstar (DC Comics)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable comic-book character created by a user with a long history of adding fancruft articles. There is no indication that significant coverage exists for the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R.E.B.E.L.S.#Second team where she is already listed and described. Very minor character that really only appeared in that indicated run of REBELS. Of the three sources included in the article, one is not a valid source as it is just an editor's commentary, one is just an issue of the comic book, and the third (the link currently in the article seems to be dead, but you can find it here) does not even mention the character. Searches turn up no other significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma's response. I was unable to find any Reliable Source coverage on this character, and the sources in the article fail to support Notability. Alsee (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails GNG as written, but redirecting is superior to outright deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Argento Surfer (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Does not have sources to support notability, but a redirect is a good WP:ATD here. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: W in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:33, 7 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 Round Grove Township, Indiana. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Round Grove, Indiana[edit]

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

A post office, not a settlement: even the cited source for the name origin says so. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails GNG, my BEFORE on newspapers.com is only turning up info on the larger township for which this post office was named. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, obviously, to Round Grove Township, Indiana, as search term. Djflem (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, A post office and not a notable place, may be redirected to Round Grove Township, Indiana. NMasiha (talk) 21:58, 10 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 Swimming pool#Indoor pools. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natatorium[edit]

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

Beginnings of a WP:CFORK of Swimming pool, which it could redirect to, bringing to AFD for consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

obvious merge back to swimming pool. I think a lot of what's here could be kept in the section on indoor pools, but I can't see why we need a separate article because of the roof. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to swimming pool#Indoor pools. I came very close to saying redirect, as the only non-duplicated content are the origin of the term and the gallery which I don't think need merging. However I then realized that the that target section doesn't actually mention the term "Natatorium", and we can't redirect there until it does. So "merge" Natatorium as a synonym for indoor pool. Alsee (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comments from the edit history of WP:RMTR are provided here below as context: —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Natatorium" is a very rare term not normally used except in the names of a few specific buildings, and it can also refer to an outdoor swimming pool. Espoo (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until your recent edits, Indoor pool redirected to Swimming pool. What you're doing here is changing the scope of the Natatorium article. I'm tempted to revert it all, since I don't think it actually improves any of the affected articles. 162 etc. (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles seem to treat "natatorium" primarily as a distinct facility (a separate building or relatively elaborate wing or extension) rather than a generic term for any indoor pool. The Swimming pool article repeatedly emphasizes this, referring to "buildings such as natatoriums and leisure centers" and saying "If a pool is in a separate building, the building may be called a natatorium." None of the examples in the Natatorium article are ordinary indoor pools such as one might encounter in a typical hotel or luxurious private home. I also somewhat wonder whether that article is needed at all. It almost seems to be about the word natatorium as much as it is about the facility itself – e.g. most of the article is devoted to the use of the term as primarily a North American phenomenon, and the examples and "see also" topics are primarily from the United States. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. It's important to have an article on indoor pools as exists in other languages, f.ex. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwimmbad, because they are an important part of daily life in most cities and are technically and in other aspects very different from outdoor pools and should not be presented only in a subsection of our article on outdoor pools. The information that some indoor pools are called natatoriums merits a subsection in an article on the important topic of indoor pool but definitely not a separate article. The current explanation about indoor pools in the intro of swimming pool is misleading/nonsense: "Many of these municipal pools are outdoor pools but indoor pools can also be found in buildings such as natatoriums and leisure centers." This should of course be: These municipal pools can be outdoor pools or indoor pools, and some of them are in buildings called leisure centers or natatoriums. --Espoo (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I'm formally declining this. It should not go to WP:RM. I agree with 162 on reverting the recent changes at Natatorium. Polyamorph (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into swimming pool: The swimming pool article does contain the word "natatorium" in several places. Per my previous comments, the Natatorium article seems to be about the word natatorium as much as it is about the facility itself – e.g. most of the article is devoted to the use of the term as primarily a North American phenomenon, and the examples and "see also" topics are primarily from the United States. The meaning of the word and a few examples of places that use the word can be in the swimming pool article without the need for a separate article. The explanation of architectural requirements can also go into the indoor pool section of the swimming pool article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in high latitudes, such as the Great Plains states, Scandinavia, or Iceland, this is a common thing. There are literally thousands of sources. It was actually a mulligan on the Fox TV show The X Files. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 13 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 17:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Connell[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources.Meatsgains^(talk) 16:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get scattered hits on the company, none for this fellow. Article reads like a Linked in resume, not GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this "business expert" does not meet our notability criteria for GNG. Netherzone (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Man doing his job. Completely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Subject fails WP:GNG. The article should be draftified if not deleted. Suasufzeb 12:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not meet notability requirements. NMasiha (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Paul W (talk) 11:02, 12 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 00:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurgen Khachatryan[edit]

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

The article was apparently created by an undisclosed paid editor. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_180#Galaxy_Group_of_Companies. The content is primarily promotional. Fails WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of hits in GNews from "Armenia News", unsure how reliable it is, appears to be a PR source. Leaning !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant promotional content. I have not fully evaluated Reliability of the sources, but most of the sources do not provide significant coverage of the this person, and those that do provide significant coverage have been grossly misrepresented.
Note: I am willing to withdraw my delete !vote if some reputable editor(not the original author) wants to adopt this article, verify compliance with Notability, and rewrite the content to accurately reflect sources and comply with NPOV. For example see Son of former Armenian Finance Minister goes on the run and Arrested Gurgen Khachatryan says destruction of business structure is on agenda, which is not reflected in the article. Alsee (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Some parts of the article seem not compliant with guidelines for Biographies for living people. However, the topic has significance, so better to edit it, add criticism and objective sources to it, rather then delete it. I have edited previously 2 biographies of living persons. I will give a try in the upcoming days. Արմինե Վարդանյան (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:TNT. Barely coherent. In 2007, this might have been kept, but in 2022, everyone knows that we are not a free web host or LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 13 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. With attribution concerns resolved... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament translations with the name of God[edit]

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

While this topic appears to be notable, I believe that this list does not comply with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I do not believe that this should be merged with Names and titles of God in the New Testament, because it would still violate NOTDIRECTORY. House Blaster^talk 15:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible and Christianity. House Blaster^talk 15:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's any reason to have something on this topic, it should be an article discussing the history and perspectives around the topic, not a list. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, I don't think it is a notable topic. The thing is, these are all fringe translations. In fact, on this particular issue it doesn't appear that they are translating at all: the article doesn't even say what word is being translated: "there are translations of the New Testament that translate it as Yahweh, Jehovah or some related form." What is the "it" here? There is, in fact, no Greek word being discussed. St Anselm (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question of how to translate the Old Testament name of God is a notable one, of course: that is dealt with in our article Tetragrammaton. St Anselm (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems that this article is really about how κύριος is translated in the NT. If there is any salvageable content (e.g. a list of the words used), it could be merged to Kyrios#New Testament - an article that also needs a lot of work. St Anselm (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as a matter of fact. St Anselm (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - best covered as a couple of paragraphs (with one or two curated examples from the list) in Kyrios. Thparkth (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Any translation of Kyrios, other than as Lord, is ultimately a mistranslation, or more charitably the result of interpretation by the translator. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, the word Kyrios is applied to Jesus, God and Caesar, so that the decision when to substitute YHWH or such like is entirely a matter of interpretation by the translator, meaning that it is not a literal tranlation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable, thanks you to @StAnselm: for moving the relevant unique material to Kyrios. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on a procedural note, if content has been directly cut and pasted from this article into another as it seems to have been based on the description, it cannot be deleted, for attribution purposes. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wrote the relevant content from scratch. St Anselm (talk) 16:20, 13 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 15:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sincine film festival[edit]

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

like the previous afd, non-notable, run of the mill festival sourced mostly to itself/blackhat SEO and PR PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a contested draftification. Often, we suggest that moving to draft after consensus building is appropriate. Not this time. The nom's analysis of references as black hat SEO is one I trust, they work in this area. I have no hesitation in suggesting that this fails WP:GNG and will not pass in a month of Sundays. It shoudl not be returned to Draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero hits for this film fest, most are for Venice, Cannes and Toronto. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability criteria for this topic. Ira Leviton (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:51, 13 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 15:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SME Global[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Tries to sound important, but is just an unknown organization without independent coverage. Icodense (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes it look important but it isn't. -Cupper52^Discuss! 18:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The three refs in the article are junk, and my Google search was unable to turn up any sources at all to support Notability. Alsee (talk) 22:02, 6 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rantanplan[edit]

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

Supporting character in comics. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the supplementary Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PS. I recommmend redirecting this to Lucky Luke in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, not deleting. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, so far I've seen a few paragraphs here, somewhat shorter treatment here and here, and very short bit of commentary here, p. 110. Daranios (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, The Alain Van Passen collection : at the crossroads of comics collecting and critique has a discussion of the name, and how the character relates to the fanzine of the same name. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios I read the latter discussion and concluded it's irrelevant here - it just says that the magazine name was inspired by several things, one of them being this entity. This is ok, assuming it is reliable (is it?) but [8] is a passing mention in one sentence, you can hardly get further from SIGCOV than this. [9], with two sentences on topic or so, likely fails SIGCOV. So I appreciate you doing the lit review here, but I think we have one possibly good source (in-depth, although not sure if it is reliable), and some passing mentions. Btw, please note I've PRODed Jolly Jumper, feel free to deprod if you think it should end up here (that's the horse from this comic book series, seems to have even less coverage than the dog). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: This is from CNews. I only know what's in the Wikipedia article, but as that compares it to FoxNews, I guess we can work with the same assumption: "Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science". As far as I understand that article is supported by a longer treatment I have found: Milou, Idéfix et Cie: le chien en BD has a whole chapter "Rantanplan, sidekick who became chief "gagdog"" starting p. 181, plus many more mentions throughout. Daranios (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Milou, Idéfix... is the same source Fram had already mentioned earlier. Daranios (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Had its own comic series between 1987 and 2011 (20 albums in total, which is for a bande dessinée a considerable run, and many of them translated in Dutch, German, Spanish, Portuguese, ...), plus a major role in different Lucky Luke albums like L'Héritage de Rantanplan. Secondary sources? This one alone should be sufficient to keep this: chapter 6 is completely about Rantanplan, and he is mentioned throughout the book elsewhere. Getting an entry in Les Chiens célèbres should seal the deal, clearly notable. Fram (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one again has a separate entry for Rantanplan, making it clear that he has become an archetype in France, an instantly recognisable icon. You also get this, or this. Fram (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram Thanks. Shame nobody added this to fr wiki, if there was some sort of reception section, referenced, then I wouldn't have nominated this. Any chance you could write a few sentences for us? My French is poor and I can't access most of the linked sources anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough secondary sources have been found to show that the topic fullfills WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the sources @Fram mentioned above. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:44, 8 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mungai Warui[edit]

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

He competed at the Olympics in 2016 and the Commonwealth Games in 2006 and 2010 but didn't win any medals. I don't think he passes WP:NBOXING and a WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up anything significant. Suonii180 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kenya. Suonii180 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one piece of significant coverage, after searching for "Peter Mungai boxer" on Google: [10]. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the above source. Looks like there's enough there to write an article anyway. FOARP (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as we currently only have one source. If anyone can find another decent bit of coverage, please ping me. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as above, but if not, then redirect to Boxing at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's light flyweight - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like this is one of the rare cases where sources actually exist on the sportsperson to a meaningful degree. There's even a lot more than what I found that appears to be in Kenya-specific news outlets, but most of it is paywall blocked, so I can't check it, annoyingly. Here's what I did find though:

Langat, Kennedy (August 9, 2016). "Kenyan boxer Mungai qualifies for quarter finals in Rio". Kenya Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved September 11, 2022.

Ayodi, Ayumba (August 10, 2016). "Peter Mungai's Olympics medal dream shattered". Daily Nation. Retrieved September 11, 2022.

"Bare-knuckled Kenyan scores shock Rio boxing win". Agence France-Presse. August 8, 2016. Retrieved September 11, 2022.

Ateka, Samson (April 30, 2016). "Peter Mungai joins Okwirri in Rio trip". The Star. Retrieved September 11, 2022.

Kirshner, Alex (August 8, 2016). "A Kenyan Olympic boxer broke into a gyrating dance with his coaches after a big win". SB Nation. Retrieved September 11, 2022.

Oh, and since you wanted a ping, @MarchOfTheGreyhounds: here you go! Silver seren^C 21:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by User:Silver seren which clearly demonstrate notability. Nice work! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:39, 11 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 23:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baja Rally[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of an article deleted in 2020 (no SIGCOV) with concerns about promotional editing. I see it was accepted at AfC by Kvng (ping), who is not an administrator and therefore neither of us can tell if WP:G4 applies.

There are three sources in the article that were published in 2020 or later, and all of them are thinly-veiled interviews

[11] - at least the first paragraph is honest about how the article is written
[12] - mostly Bloom quotes
[13] - either a disguised interview or routine coverage Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NEUTRAL COMMENT: This nomination does not involve the much more well-known Baja 1000. Nate • (chatter) 19:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo article which fails to establish notability. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find nothing for this rally, lost for the Baja 1000. No sources, GNG not met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 6 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana (1960 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 12:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Can't find reliable sources for it and it won't pass WP:NFILM VincentGod11 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Strike sockpuppet vote. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep per user:MichaelQSchmidt's comment in the previous AfD. A simple BEFORE shows that the movie existed, and is not a hoax. Detialed info (can be considered as significant coverage) can be found here, and at bfi.org.uk, a non-indian website. Film's most of the cast/crew is notable, so it is evident the film is notable as well. Regarding the reviews, it is well known that India has not archived pre-2000 stuff in online format very well, and current reviewers are interested in clickbaits. It is difficult to find the print reviews for a 50's film even if they were abundant. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a film exists does not mean it warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. The 2 citations you mentioned are database sites and do not contribute to notability or NFILM or GNG. Having cast/crew that is notable is also not a criteria for the film as notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED DonaldD23 talk to me 01:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources exist just by going through Google books. It's clearly notable and deletion is not the right course of action - expansion is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:19, 7 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Committee Against Torture (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:TWODABS applies, with the UN organization being the primary topic. There is already a hatnote there. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Clarityfiend. VincentGod11 (talk) 12:51, 6 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. ✗plicit 11:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Touch of Grey[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as only 1 review cited and no others found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Can't find reliable reference on Google for it. VincentGod11 (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Strike sockpuppet vote. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The review in The Globe and Mail is a solid source, and I think The Georgia Straight is probably reliable enough (at least for present purposes)—I think we generally accept that well-known/award-winning alternative weeklies aren't problematic from an RS perspective. There's also a review in The Province available here. It's a marginal case, but on balance I think the sourcing is just about sufficient for a GNG pass. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews identified above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have made some additions. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources including The Globe and Mail, The Georgia Straight, The Province, and The Windsor Star. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:12, 8 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 Pranav Vatsa. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyun Na Aaye[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NALBUM. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Non-notable. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pranav Vatsa. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:55, 10 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 11:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Olivarez[edit]

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

Fails GNG. BLP of Filipino provincial politician with little/no significant coverage in reliable independent publications. Paul W (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the Philippines, "provincial" means something else, that is someone "from the province" (there's an explanation at PROMDI#Name and symbols), and as far as Olivarez goes, his town was no longer a part of a province, at least for almost 30 years from when he became mayor. Now, I won't say "keep because he is a mayor of a city in Metro Manila" and be accused of Imperial Manila centrism, but his heyday was in the 1990s, and unless you'd dig up Manila Standard archives in Google News's newspaper archive, you won't be able to find anything from him on the internet (but you can build a serviceable article out if it; see 1993 Bataan gubernatorial recall election). It's too bad he didn't become congressman like his children, as that would surely satisfy WP:NPOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:41, 10 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!} 07:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Canaan (film)[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Alex Spade (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never completed, doesn't exist. Per WP:Notability_(films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed_films, films which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. The sources in the article lack significant coverage and/or or are of dubious Reliability. I searched for sources and I came up empty. Alsee (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unmade film lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so not passing WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 7 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!} 07:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivarez College[edit]

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

Currently unsupported by any references. Google search of news shows mainly routine mentions in college sports reports. Paul W (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At what point does an avalanche of sporting reports flip over into notability? I suspect finding news sources is rather difficult just because of the volume of sports reports. I'm leaning keep but will try to have a bit more of a dig to see if I can put a good reason on it. GoldenRing (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant find any sources that can fit WP:NSCHOOL. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some sources and expanded the article. Admittedly, sources about its history, programs and facilites came from the school itself. However, I was also able to find sources not from the school. I think that its nursing program, its athletics program and OC Gymnasium and Coliseum are what make it notable. D-Flo27 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually somehow true; their gymnasium is the largest in southern Metro Manila (excluding Pasay), and was even a host of several ASEAN Basketball League games. Their athletics program is built off their gym and their men's basketball team won championships in the turn of the 2010s decade. I could not comment on its nursing program, though. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has sources already that added by D-Flo27. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it passes WP:NSCHOOL now. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSCHOOL with sources added to the article by D-Flo. They're reliable enough, with some in-depth, IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now meets WP:NSCHOOL. –Davey2010^Talk 18:43, 10 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!} 07:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Quesada Street[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Local road named after a local mayor. I've performed Google, Google Books, Google News and Google Scholar searches and did not get any substantial hits.

Only hit that I got is a 1988 article that documents the renaming of the street [14].

Normally, I'm fine with WP:ATD with a redirect to Paete but there's no information there about the street. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoldenRing (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NMasiha (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paete. Just a minor street in the town. Fails WP:GEOROAD per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GEOROAD. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:04, 12 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. A keep from the creator is certainly outweighed by the arguments to delete it, but with one being weak and another active participant making a case to merge or redirect, there's no clear consensus. Suggest continuing a merger discussion at the Talk Star Mississippi 13:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ear X-tacy[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. A lot of cited sources only cover them in passing. Some aren't even about the business itself, but about what the building previously occupied. Graywalls (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kentucky. Graywalls (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 6 of the 8 articles are about the store and owner directly. Reference #4 from 1934 is the only one I can't directly tell what it relates to, but I presume that's the one about the streetcar turnaround point. I'll admit that references #6 and #7 have issues in that #6 is mostly about something else and #7 is a minor mention. However, 3 others are profile pieces directly about the store, and one other being about a documentary made about the store. Martinman (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martinman11 ( article creator), For an article on a company or an organization sustain existence on Wikipedia, it has to meet WP:NCORP which means it has to pass WP:SIRS which includes audience level meaning it isn't just a local interest. Sure, a documentary was made about it by a local filmmaker and it was talked about it in a local magazine, but I'm not seeing it as more than a local level interest. The CIMSMUSIC absolutely is not independent secondary. Commenting a bit further into the documentary here. "In April, local filmmaker (and co-founder of this weekend’s Lebowski Fest)" indicates it is of local interest. The fact that this documentary was created is reliably established in a reliable source, meaning that there's no factual dispute that it was created and I think it's fine to include it in the article but it has relatively low weight in establishing a notability. Local people write history about local places all the time. Alumni could do a documentary about the playground at their former school too. However, those do not significantly add notability credit for inclusion into Wikipedia, which is a global level encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks non-local notability indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitskvarts (talk • contribs) 12:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd welcome more opinions from more experienced editors who frequent AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As per WP:AUD it should be deleted. But it is well documented and so I can see why it would stay if you twisted my arm a little. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to the Culture of Louisville article, interesting tidbit, but not enough for a stand-alone article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 6 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!} 07:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suman, Indiana[edit]

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

This is another searching nightmare due to a variety of Civil War references (particularly an officer in the Chickamauga campaign) but searching on "Sumanville" eventually came up with this short bit on the "town" which describes it as a "small station" on the B&O and remarks upon several failures to establish a store there. I found another reference to it as a station on the predecessor Ohio & Mississippi. It is still a point of the CSX mainline, but I find no real evidence of this as an actual town. Mangoe (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly referred to as a village or town such as in an 1896 history of the Civil War campaign, Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey to the Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894 and other inline references in article. Djflem (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while considered a Lost communities of Porter County, Indiana, notability is not temporary and this passes GNG. Djflem (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found this historical retrospective on the village: "Hero's Home". The Vidette-Messenger (Memoirs/Special Anniversary ed.). March 26, 1991. p. 7. (this whole newspaper edition is devoted to the history of communities in Porter County). Combined with the other sources, I think this community satisfied NGEO. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Keep, it is notable enough. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:32, 8 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!} 07:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Douglass Cemetery[edit]

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

Non-notable, lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. Cemeteries are not inherently notable. The first source in the article is a minor mention in general interest article. The second is very short and self-published. Searching turns up littler more. Find-a-grave does indicate is has about 3,000 graves and is also called Douglass Pioneer Cemetery. MB 01:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MB 01:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nom that cemeteries aren't inherently notable (see [15]), and this one doesn't seem to meet the GNG. There have been a few more sources added since the nomination, but they don't move the needle very far: [16] and [17] are just mentions on lists, while [18] and [19] are passing mentions in the press. My search didn't find much of note, either—mostly just trivial mentions in obituaries and the like. There is a bit in this book, but its publisher is of dubious reliability, and regardless we need sigcov in more than one source. Doesn't clear the notability threshold, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer, I can't view much of the text in the 2021 book you've shared. Searching "Douglass Cemetery" and "Douglass Pioneer Cemetery" at the Oregonian archives via Multnomah County Library yields many hundreds of returns, obviously most of which are passing mentions in obituaries. However, difficult to tell if there's some non-obituary coverage hidden in the pile as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need to rush to delete this entry. I'd prefer to see the page expanded with info about notable burials (per Oregon Metro) and give editors more time to sift through newspaper archives. Also, if a standalone article is inappropriate at this time then shouldn't the content be merged into the Troutdale article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, responding to an editor's request to have more time to consider this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 6 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!} 07:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love Justice International[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP/WP:SIGCOV. Article lacks independent sources and I could not find any. I sympathize with their stated goals, but that does not suffice. Kleuske (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Nebraska. Kleuske (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Page is almost entirely unsourced. Googling "Love Justice International" come up with a decent number of references by similar anti-human trafficking sites but nothing that meets WP:Reliable. "Tiny Hands International" elucidates even fewer hits with only 4 mentions in the news, total. In this editor's humble opinion, there is likely not enough out there to save this page from AfD. The only chance this article may have is if the page is completely redone and even then the sources won't be of any particular quality. Etrius ( Us) 02:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: Funny enough, the original page when first created was.... not the best, but had a few decent citations. The decent ciations all just 404 now. Looking at the original creator's contributions a cynical part of me wants to call WP:COI. Etrius ( Us) 02:41, 10 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 12:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Gallinger[edit]

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

The article is lacking sources, with one main source being a personal website that is no longer active. Web searches can not find a history of the noted awards or two of the novels as existing.

It also appears this page may have been created by the subject himself, as the same account created a page for the subject's wife, both of which are against Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chart76 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was never transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion until now
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only secondary source is the second one, a review of a book they wrote, however notability is not inherited, so there are no valid sources, and I could not find any other sources. There's also an interview linked in the external links section, however that's nowhere near sufficient coverage for an article by itself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pppery. The subject's wife's article, Doni Tamblyn, looks like it may also not meet the current notability standards as they have changed rather significantly since the 2008 AfD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:16, 8 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. czar 04:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Boca Raton Community High School[edit]

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

Unlike the other Boca Raton high schools, no notable alumni; mostly written like an ad. There really isn't too much that can be expanded from this article unless the next Elon Musk graduates from here. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Gilded Snail (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fortunately, notable alumni are not required for a school subject to meet WP:GNG, the guideline for non-profit schools. The search for sources was complicated by the many variations of the school's name, as now shown in the infobox rather than the multiple acronyms in the lead paragraph — most sources left "community" out of the title, even the official NCES listing. I added a history section with multiple RS. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now has 23 references, up from 4 when nominated. Several of these are WP:SIGCOV, the article easily meets the general notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is important to review as it helps summarize the usual outcomes with schools. We're however beyond the basic discussion points here as it meets sufficient WP:GNG. – The Grid (talk) 13:51, 12 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!} 07:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prather, Morgan County, Indiana[edit]

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

Appears to be yet another of Indiana's oddly-named subdivisions. Not as certain as some of the others but the aerials show it appearing in the 1960s. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Township, Morgan County, Indiana per Wikipedia:NGEO: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection; Redirecting an article is often an appropriate course of action to be taken when an article clearly fails to meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion. In such cases, a bold redirect to an appropriate page allows the history of the article to be maintained such that future editors may expand the article to establish notability for the subject. Djflem (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic non-notable subdivision/housing development that shouldn't be catalogued on the township article either. Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these subdivisions do not seem important enough to catalogue on the township article without an UNDUEWEIGHT violation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The alternative to deletion suggested wasn't a Merge but a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Liz, I was well aware of that, my comment was suggesting that the information on subdivisions be deleted from the Washington Township article as irrelevant. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:29, 6 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 10:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's tournament[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. There has been prior consensus to delete sport specific articles related to the Maccabiah Games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - separate articles not needed. nominator should also nominate Football at the 2017 Maccabiah Games – Men's tournament and Football at the 2017 Maccabiah Games – Women's tournament. Giant Snowman 09:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ice hockey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep loss of information with deletion. Enough information for separate pages. --SuperJew (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the fact that this information exists does not counteract the WP:GNG failure of these events. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would expect that most sources would be in Hebrew, and from Israel. Have you checked such sources to verify a GNG failure? Rlendog (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. The only source that came even remotely close to providing anything, for any of these events, was this in Israel Hayom, but said article is not about any specific event in any of the Maccabiah Games', rather it's about how Basketball being played at the Maccabiah Games helped improve Israeli Basketball. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Devonian Wombat, who has done a clear WP:BEFORE to verify that there isn't enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 8 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kumar (British filmmaker)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Why is an article needed when there are no sources that could be used to make content. The only article of use is this. That sources talks about Ajay (his brother) and Vijay but more sources are needed on Vijay. The article was written by this user and have no idea where they got access to sources 1, 6 and 7, but based on the current article almost all of it (if not all of it) is original research that does not explain why he is notable. Could not fins any suitable wikilinks that can be sourced. DareshMohan (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, Delhi, and United Kingdom. Gilded Snail (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:36, 13 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. czar 04:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elina Nasaudrodro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Olympics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BASIC based on national media coverage which has now been added to her bio, including articles by the Fiji Times about her qualification for the 2004 Athens Olympics, her leadership of the Oceania girls judo team at the 2005 ~~Youth Olympics~~ Australian Youth Olympic Festival ("Elina leads youth team"), and her bronze medal performance at the festival in Sydney. Beyond Fiji, there is a Japanese article about Elina Nasaudrodro and teammate Sisilia Nasiga which appeared in Psychology of Health & Sport, published by the Kyūshū Sports Psychology Society. The author observed the Fijian judo team in training and during their Olympic appearances, and offered a critique of the coaching they had received in preparation for Olympic competition. The article also acknowledges the novelty at the time of judo in Fiji. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no Youth Olympics held in 2005, and the 2010 edition (the inaugural one) was in Singapore. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Momentarily thought it was a typo, but source clearly says 2005, so will try to work out why that is. Maybe they were two different events similarly named. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, have changed to Australian Youth Olympic Festival in the text and above. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on additions by Cielquiparle. Ingratis (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep: most Olympians don't have articles about them in academic journals - this person is clearly notable. St Anselm (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically I don't think Psychology of Health & Sport qualifies as a peer-reviewed academic journal, but yes, overall there is enough coverage to justify keeping the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep base don added sources. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:56, 12 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. I could repeat what what Vanamonde93 said at the related AfD, for Andrew Hollander. The SPAs have come out, but unfortunately for them, none of them actually put forward arguments to bolster their case. So, the "deletes" have it. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Parish[edit]

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

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

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

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

I just reverted an edit that had a lot of unsourced puffery about singer/songwriter Dana Parish. This caused me to review the article and edit history. The article is filled with dubious puffery. Also, the article is sourced mostly from Parish herself or from her own PR-associates, with the exception of an NY Post article.

There is no evidence of "significant coverage" required for notability. It's possible that many of the edits (along with edits of Parish's husband Andrew Hollander) are by someone close to the subject. The talk page warns about 2015 concerns about conflicts of interest, and the creator of this article also edited Hollander's page.

Parish has no scientific credentials, but she co-authored a 2021 book attempting to legitimize fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories about infectious diseases like Lyme disease, bartonella, and COVID. But unlike conspiracy theorists like Judy Mikovits, her beliefs claiming that autoimmune diseases and many other conditions are related to chronic Lyme disease never received "significant coverage" from reliable sources for notability. Accordingly, I think it is a good idea to delete this article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This recommendation for profile removal makes no sense. I loved Dana's music industry work with Idina Menzel,,,which is when I started following her. I found her personal story fascinating including the fact that her Yale trained doctor saved her life! I loved that they wrote a top selling book together to help doctors and patients. Why is a random person allowed to make strange comments and unfound accusations? Laurarae1966 (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)— Laurarae1966 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP I see this is a personal attack on Parish and her husband and that Parish’s page was vandalized before. This is not allowed. I have spent time verifying her citations and notability is met. Crazy4science (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)— Crazy4science (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I looked up these references and they are all valid. I am not sure why this author is being targeted but her book is legitimate and was endorsed by Sanjay Gupta, George Church and others. It is not fringe. I read it after her interview on The Doctors.

List of links

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FuVMVziGii8&feature=emb_imp_woyt
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zESbA7AJE&feature=emb_imp_woyt
https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/celine-dion-shows-edge-and-tries-out-new-characters-on-loved-me-5770656/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/long-covid-lyme-disease.html
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/22/intersection-coronavirus-lyme-disease-creates-summer-worry-column/3221450001/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ticks-california-beaches-lyme-disease/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5OX0Z_RKOOU&feature=emb_imp_woyt
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marybethpfeiffer/2020/03/13/lessons-from-lyme-disease-six-reasons-the-cdcs-covid-19-failure-was-predictable/?sh=78e6cc4f8e6b
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/covid-concerned-colleges-spring-start-dates-remote
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/11/02/celine-dion-loved-me-back-to-life-interview/3189581/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Coscolín (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation to delete this page is clearly a personal attack and has no merit. Dana Parish is an author signed to Harper Collins and a songwriter signed to Sony Music. There are more than enough references on her page to support her legitimacy. It should be noted that the same person suggesting deletion is trying to delete her husband's Wikipedia page as well (also with no legitimate reason since his page is also well referenced and he has worked on many high profile projects with acclaimed recording artists and filmmakers), all the more evidence that these are personal attacks and harassment. magic4950 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — Magic4950 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The recommendation to delete is based on lack of notability and reliable sources to support an article. I don't think we can say Parish's book is notable simply because it was published by a big publisher, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (now called HarperCollins). On the contrary, given the marketing force typically available to a large publisher, it's notable that this book has received little attention outside of WP:FRINGE circles. Given the fringe chronic Lyme disease and herbalism topics mentioned in the (paid-for?) Kirkus Review, discussion of this book should be in accordance with WP:NFRINGE.
  And while Parish may have been employed in the music industry for a number of years and worked for some well-known artists, there is no evidence of widespread notability in accordance with Wikipedia:MUSICBIO. Billboard has a page showing a single credit: one of Parish's songs briefly reached #23 on its chart, but there isn't good evidence that this song or album was notable. I haven't found evidence, aside from her own PR firm, to support claims about being "one of the highest-charting independent artists. Parish bested herself, and broke into the Top 10, with the second single".
  The nomination of both this article and the article for Andrew Hollander for deletion was prompted by noticing highly dubious edits made over a period of years by single purpose accounts like yourself Magic4950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and by a shared editor already identified as potentially having a conflict of interest. Though nominated on the same day, I urge other editors to consider each article and nomination for deletion on its own merits. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fyi, the Kirkus Reviews Indie Reviews (a separate, paid program within Kirkus Reviews) are clearly marked, e.g. example "Review Program: Kirkus Indie". The review I linked in this discussion is not an Indie review. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh ok thanks! I also composed my other comment before reading yours. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first link alone with the interview on The Doctors should demonstrate Dana's credentials and public notability with regard to both the book she wrote and her early music career. Thats was from just last year, I recall the episode. DubiousPuffery (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much more than an interview, the program doesn't meet notability standards IMHO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now recommended deletion of the page for Parish's husband Andrew Hollander. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning feels like personal bias against this musical artist and author. What in the article is untrue? What specifically is incorrect? More proof than malicious personal attacks are needed to support the deletion of this article. DubiousPuffery (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — DubiousPuffery (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Just because an article is correct doesn't mean the subject is WP:NOTABLE. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing in the article is untrue. We need you to prove notability with reliable sources, as explained above. Please refrain from the accusations of personal attacks; we delete several hundred articles a month because they don't meet notability standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is content in the article that is not verified, including several career-related claims. Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even further reason to delete it then; I've looked and can't find substantial sources we can use. Almost appears to be an SEO article used to further her career, which I'm doubtful is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see below links that illustrate Dana Parish's credentials as both a songwriter and expert in Lyme Disease and other vector borne diseases. There is clearly significant coverage of her work, including by other respected public voices in science, that warrants her page on Wikipedia.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Celine Dion Shows Edge, and Tries Out New Characters, on ‘Loved Me Back to Life’ (Billboard, 2013)	See WP:MUSICBIO#1 - in this source primarily about Celine Dion, the artists talk about themselves.		The five short grafs related to the one song co-written by Parish are primarily quotes. e.g. from Parish, Dion, and Parish and Hollander's friend Peter Lloyd, then of Razor & Tie Music Publishing.	✘ No
Long-Haul Covid and the Chronic Illness Debate (Ross Douthat, NYT Opinion, 2021)	Douthat is not independent: "...Phillips is also my physician, with whom I have worked off and on for much of the last five years. I like to think that I would find his argument convincing on its own terms, but my bias is obvious and overwhelming..."		This opinion article is not primarily focused on the book.	✘ No
What happens when coronavirus and Lyme disease intersect? It's a scary time for patients (USAToday, 2020)	Parish is a co-author of this opinion article.	? "Isabel Rose is a writer and board member of Project Lyme. She has lived with Chronic Lyme Disease for more than 40 years. Dana Parish is a Sony/ATV songwriter whose life was derailed by a tick bite in 2014."	This is by Parish, not about Parish.	✘ No
Tick discovery near Northern California beaches prompts warning about Lyme disease (CBS News, 2021)			There is little context available in this brief article, which states Parish contracted Lyme in New Jersey and "At one point she went into heart failure" and quotes her for her opinion about a recent study related to the spread of Lyme-carrying ticks: "I hope that this study will bring light to the fact that it is here" (in California).	✘ No
Lessons From Lyme Disease: Six Reasons The CDC’s COVID-19 Failure Was Predictable (Forbes contributor, 2020)		See WP:FORBESCON Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable.	quotes Parish as "a leading Lyme reformer and co-author of a coming book, “Chronic,” that is harshly critical of the CDC."	✘ No
More COVID-concerned colleges going remote in early January, or moving start dates back (Fox News, 2021)		? WP:FOXNEWS There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims.	Does not mention Parish.	✘ No
For Celine Dion, new album was all about choice (USAToday, 2013)	Parish and Hollander are quoted. See WP:MUSICBIO#1 - in this source primarily about Celine Dion, the artists talk about themselves and Dion.		Parish and Hollander talk about Dion, independent detail about their work is minimal.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Beccaynr (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a 2020 book review from Kirkus Reviews and a 2008 CBS News article that follows her appearance on The Early Show and includes some biographical information and career highlights. The WP:NYPOST is not helpful for supporting notability, but per WP:MUSICBIO, the Billboard charting may help support this article (I have not been able to verify all of the chart-related claims in the article). Beccaynr (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd probably need another book review for AUTHOR, having a charting single is notable, but we don't have enough of each for the article to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - We need more than another review for WP:AUTHOR, e.g. per #3 The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... (emphasis added, because this guideline requires more than multiple reviews for one work). Based on available sources, this article appears suitable for deletion per the second prong of WP:N, because Wikipedia is not WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Beccaynr: Thanks for your efforts and comments. Kirkus Reviews is viewed as a sometimes-paid marketing tool, so I question whether it is truly independent of the subject. This review aside, there isn't evidence of widespread notability for this book. There is also no evidence the reviewer is a reliable source for medical topics, since the book promotes herbalism and long-discredited WP:FRINGE alternative medical beliefs about diverse conditions, including multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and psychiatric disorders. I provided some other comments in response to another editor. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The selfpublishingadvice.org website discusses the Kirkus Indie Reviews program, even though they refer to it as "Kirkus Reviews", but it is separate from the unpaid and independent Kirkus Reviews we routinely cite at AfD as contributing support for notability. But as further discussed in the source assessment table I added above, there does not appear to be sufficient support to show this one book is significant or well-known for WP:AUTHOR notability, in addition to insufficient reviews. Per WP:FRINGELEVEL, there also does not appear to be sufficient sourcing, WP:MEDRS or otherwise, to support WP:NBOOK notability for the book at this time. Overall, based on the available sources, it appears we have insufficient independent and reliable support per the applicable notability guidelines, so I !vote delete. Beccaynr (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not quite enough significant independant coverage (such as reviews) to meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:COMPOSER, and not really convinced is enough to meet WP:SINGER. There is some coverage, hence only a weak !vote. Looking at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, the Billboard charting is in the "Adult Contemporary" category, which is airplay only in the US, and I'm not convinced is overly significant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, keep content, don't delete wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Coscolín (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — Sergio Coscolín (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Simply asking to keep isn't really a valid argument as per WP:PLEASEDONT. You need to say what policy/guideline-based reasoning there is for keeping. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/comment/explanation I came to this page and I spent my hours on this situation. This is concerning as this person has targeted Dana Parish (and now her husband Andrew Hollander) before and was likely the one who vandalized her page calling her a “grifter” in her bio, so a series of vandalism do exist. (Redacted)
“Science Flyer” is the handle making these attacks on Dana Parish and her husband Andrew Hollander (Redacted). Harming and harassing people is not allowed on Wikipedia. Blocking is an option for continued abuse and harassment.” AppleBoosted (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC) — AppleBoosted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
’’’Comment’’’ clearly a vexatious nomination by a troll. They identified a legitimate vulnerability both in the page and in Wikipedia’s culture and they’ve exploited it.2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:BC16:CB7B:9B99:B56D (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And apples are red. Please sign your posts or we can't consider it as valid. Tis getting to be SNOW again. We should close this down. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's WP:SNOWING as it's far from unanimous. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who knows so much about them, is there a COI-conflict of interest? We have nothing in either article to say they are a couple and I can find no sources to support this. People involved in the discussion here seem to know more about both individuals than what's given in either article. Please review the WP:COI requirements if this is the case. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen a few sources about them being a couple, including https://www.danaparish.com/ and https://nypost.com/2013/11/02/nyc-songwriter-dana-parish-finds-big-break-with-celine-dion/ though I do wonder how some of the people posting here came to learn this AfD was happening, but I try to WP:AGF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, I usually avoid hot discussions but this page fairly passes WP:GNG we can't doubt that at least. Elena Marcus D (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elena Marcus D: How so? The Dana Parish page is the number one hit on Google for her name but it only averaged 3 page views per day from July 1, 2015 to July 30, 2022. Amazon says Parish's book was released on February 2, 2021. Nevertheless, the Dana Parish page averaged only 5 page views per day from January 1, 2021 to July 30, 2022.
  There is no good evidence that Parish meets the Wikipedia standards for notability, either for her music or for her book. Both Google trends and the Wikipedia page stats show no evidence of increasing notability. Doing a search in the Wikipedia library's EBSCO database found a single hit for Parish, which was a brief review of the book by a library assistant. A search of Wikipedia library's Proquest database for "dana parish" AND YR(>=2004) revealed only 102 results, most of which are duplicates, passing mentions, unrelated entities (i.e. not the Dana Parish of the article), press releases, and some of the other references already discussed here. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
&*Today I learned a new thing from you that notability is associated to daily page views. Thanks Elena Marcus D (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - - As per WP:NBIO, popularity is very much secondary. Sources are what matter for WP:NOTABILITY, please see WP:NBASIC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Page views can be bought; you can basically set up a farm that only views your page over and over on computers. Nothing helpful for notability. Certainly can be an indication of popularity, doesn't help notability standards on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you proposing that we delete every people-page that has fewer than 5 views per day? Because that would be the only *fair* policy here, rather than nominating only this page for deletion. I, also, do not see anything in WP:NBIO about page views. Test35965 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOBODYREADSIT is listed at the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay, with a caveat about redirect discussions. I also agree that refocusing this discussion to the notability guidelines and independent and reliable sources that demonstrate support for notability would be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but hold the salt WP:TOOSOON there’s always the possibility that this subject may become notable at a later date. As things stand, though, there’s no way you’ll get anything more than a stub out of these sources and in my experience WP:GNG is usually unambiguous and symbiotic with most alternative notability criteria. As for the troll, they won’t be able to harass the subject if there’s no Wikipedia entry to weaponise, so we’ll be getting two birds stoned at once.2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:78D8:3439:72E:BA24 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her sources and media coverage are from reliable sources I think I don't have to mention each source, Wikipedia should investigate because what I'm reading here this whole XFD process looks fishy. I will also leave comments on her husband's XFD. 2603:8001:9300:9656:7C7E:ED5:68D0:F92C (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have, it's been socks mostly commenting. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has good sources based on her occupations. This article was developed in December 2013 and suddenly it got listed in AFD and this seems like an targeted attack in this article.Trbrosfriday (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've semi protected this AfD as it seems to be the target of some sort of meatpuppetry campaign. firefly ( t · c ) 21:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect These single purpose accounts are going to recreate this the moment that it's deleted, so please protect it. Other than that, im not really sure we need such a promo piece as this. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Before counting or analysis the keep and delete vote please do check on the talk page of Handmeanotherbagofthemchips and it seems like a targeted attack.I have mentioned the same details in another AfD as the same person targeting this article too. Losovefa (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's have a discussion without SPAs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. I see some glimmerings in the NY Post article (which is listed as two separate references). I suspect a deeper search may uncover more, but I would leave it to an AFC reviewer to let it back in. BD2412 T 02:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At WP:RSP, the description for WP:NYPOST includes A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. I searched for more sources and posted what I found above but do not believe it is sufficient to support notability. Based on the apparent meatpuppetry campaign, I agree that salting this article seems appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Entertainment. ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hollander's page has been deleted, I'd agree to a SALT here too, it seems everyone is crawling out of the woodwork on these nominations; would be nice if they'd stick around and help with the other AfD discussions. This one has been a good learning experience for all involved. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 6 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 Marquess of Sligo. ✗plicit 01:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Browne, 12th Marquess of Sligo[edit]

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

British noblesman who fails WP:BIO, in particular WP:BASIC. Never sat in the House of Lords so cannot qualify for WP:NPOL either. The London Gazette and Sydney Morning Herald sources are primary and do not provide significant coverage; and Debrett's only covers the subject's genealogy, which is insufficient to establish notability. BEFORE didn't turn up any reliable sources, with the exception of a passing mention regarding his family's estate. Potential redirect target at Marquess of Sligo. Pilaz (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Australia. Pilaz (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:PEERAGE#Notability, members of the peerage are not conferred with automatic notability. And so WP:NBIO and/or WP:SIGCOV would need to be met. And there is no evidence that either criteria is met. In the article itself, the only sources we find are a run-of-the-mill newspaper wedding announcement (a form of classified/small-ad) and routine Gazette and Debrett's entries (which each respectively PREDATE the subject's birth and "succession" by a decade). Outside the article, and in my own quick WP:BEFORE search, what I mostly find are Wikipedia mirrors and the types of entries in self-published peerage websites which have long been considered unreliable for sourcing/notability purposes. Otherwise a Google search returns the subject's real-estate business website, LinkedIn profile and passing mentions in news stories which are substantively about something else (like cousin's obituary). With an eye on WP:ANYBIO, I looked in the Dictionary of Irish Biography (to see if there was a "an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary"). And, while the subject is again mentioned briefly in someone else's bio, there is no entry for the subject himself. (Holders of titles are not automatically notable. Notability doesn't automatically transfer from the title to the title-holder. Notability is not inherited. Figuratively or literally.) Guliolopez (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marquess of Sligo, his main peerage title, given that his purported notability is primarily based on a peerage title. If he later passes WP:BIO, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete titles are not sufficient for notability, there is no sigcov for this individual. GeebaKhap (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. Deus et lex (talk) 11:00, 8 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.