Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 02	April 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian property bubble[edit]

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

Original research - no evidence that the subject exists. As the article says: There were rumors and speculations... Nk (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Nk (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there isn't any indication that "speculation about a Bulgarian property bubble" is notable, either. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The PROD deletion of an earlier instance had the rationale "original theory not supported by WP:RS" which seems equally applicable to this instance. The most solid ground here is the referenced final paragraph, which notes that a significant proportion of property purchases have involved foreign buyers, preceded by some uncited mention that the Global financial crisis depressed the property market (which I don't doubt: in Bulgaria as everywhere). The reference added in 2021 does not support the overall speculative premise of the article. As an article, this is unsatisfactory whether in describing a well-founded event nor the fear of a potential event: in the absence of either, this fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2023 (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 23:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slaheddine Sebti[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, was PROD'd but BLP PROD was removed by DE removed by User:Ortizesp without adding sources.

Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing. // Timothy :: talk 23:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There is no significant coverage in the article and I was unable to find any during a search, both with the latin and arabic spelling of the name. Alvaldi (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found. Not notable. Charsaddian (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2023 (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 Bizarrap discography#2021. ✗plicit 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morad: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 47[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG. Sources in article are a single promo and 3 primary (youtube, lyrics). BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. There is no material that can be properly sourced and merged. No objection if a consensus forms for a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 22:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSONG. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:No need to delete, it might be possible to create all articles of BZRP Music Sessions and BZRP Freestyle Sessions. Oscar Daniel Pérez Aguilar (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bizarrap discography#2021. The article including all of Bizarrap Music Sessions related articles which have been targeted by Himmer Ariel, a cross-wiki, long-term vandal that shows the obsession of Bizarrap fan creating most of non-notable BZRP Music Sessions, this one should be redirected, if a Himmer sock created the article, then redirect it. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Himmer Ariel, maybe an LTA page for Himmer will be created. Fails WP:NSONGS. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:4C9D:69E5:CFDC:DD3F (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bizarrap discography#2021 per the IP above, where the song is mentioned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:31, 10 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accent (band)[edit]

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

One primary source, and a second source which is actually an unrelated Wikipedia article. I couldn't find anything about this band, and they don't appear to be notable Very Average Editor (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. There's zilch out there in terms of coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and MUSCIBIO. No reliable or enough coverage exists.Pershkoviski (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2023 (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 23:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Baird Publishers[edit]

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

This article is full of false information, but since it's about a real former company, I don't know if it qualifies for WP:G3. I'm nominating at minimum per WP:TNT but I can't really find notability of the company anyway, so I don't think it's actually notable. To run through several things here:

In 2008, Duncan Baird Publishers was acquired by the Quarto Group [...] In 2017, the Quarto Group announced that it was consolidating its imprints and restructuring its operations to focus on key markets and categories. As a result, Duncan Baird Publishers was merged with other Quarto imprints to create a new division, Quarto Publishing. I can't verify this at all, but I did find that it was acquired by Osprey Publishing in 2012 and rebranded as "Nourish" in 2015 (official website), which contradicts the article.
Every book named on the article was not published by Duncan Baird.
- The Food Doctor by Ian Marber - actually Collins & Brown
- The Complete Guide to Natural Healing by Tom Monte - actually Berkeley Publishing Group
- The Cancer Survivor's Bible by Jonathan Chamberlain - actually Long Island Press
- Cooking with Wine by Fiona Beckett - actually Ryland Peters & Small (also written 2005, so could not have won an award that it did not win anyway in 2010, more on that below)
- The Gardener's Year by Pippa Greenwood - actually Summersdale Publishers (also published in 2012, as far as I can tell, where the article claims it was published in the 2009-2010 book award year)
- The Art of Calligraphy by David Harris - actually Dorling Kindersley
- The Zen of Creativity by John Daido Loori - actually Ballantine Books
- The New Encyclopedia of Orchids by I.F. La Croix - actually Timber Press
In 2010, the company won the Gourmand World Cookbook Award for "Best Book on Cooking with Wine" for its title "Cooking with Wine" by Fiona Beckett The winner of the cooking with drinks category in 2010 was The Kentucky Bourbon Cookbook by Albert Schmid. A book titled Cooking With Wine won in 2001 but it was written by Anne Willan. Fiona Beckett won in a different category in 2021.

I have no idea where any of this information came from. Personally, after a recent LLM incident at ANI in which LLMs were generating false information and hoaxes, I would like to know from the article creator if this was written using an LLM.

But, either way, while trying to verify information in the article, I did not immediately find significant coverage establishing the company as notable on its own, and its acquisition and rebrand is covered already at Osprey Publishing. Even so, I think this needs to be TNT'd. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 21:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the creator's contributions, they were working on articles related to LLMs just before this one, so perhaps they tried using an LLM to create the initial version without realising it was mostly nonsense. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, obviously and clearly. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Per Nom. Charsaddian (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the extent of the detail set out in the article text but questioned above, I left a message on the article creator's Talk page asking if there are alternative sources which can support the text as written. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: One way to address the concerns above would be to stubify the article, removing everything after the introductory paragraph. However, the notability issue remains: I am not finding evidence that Duncan Baird Publishers / Nourish attained notability, and I think that would stand even if they could be shown to be associated with the various awarded and/or controversial books discussed above. (A redirect to Osprey_Publishing#History could be an option, though I would first recommend the stubification, to alleviate future confusion if someone looked at the contradictory pre-redirect text.) AllyD (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2023 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onur Acar[edit]

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

BLP Fails GNG and BIO: Single source is a database record from the league. BEFORE showed promo, stats, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article appears to fail WP:GNG; I can't find any significant coverage online (only routine/trivial stuff like match reports, an injury announcement, and a wedding announcement). Acar did make some Süper Lig appearances with Ankaragücü, but he was never a regular player and has spent the rest of his career in the lower leagues (even though he helped Alanyaspor gain promotion to the TFF First League, the best coverage I found was his name in match reports for the promotion play-off). Jogurney (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Aintabli (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable or enough coverage. Pershkoviski (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2023 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J.W. Police F.C.[edit]

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

Defunct minor league team lacking notability. Has no references and one Facebook link. Most hits on Google in English are mirrors of the Wikipedia page, with one or two brief entries on box score aggregation sites. It does have a page on Thai wikipedia which is longer, but that only has the one Facebook link as well, no references. Apocheir (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Thailand. Apocheir (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - short-lived club with no apparent detailed coverage in WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Street Girls[edit]

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

Article on book series that doesn't appear to pass the WP:GNG. Finlan Bendbow-Rendeck (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of RS coverage to pass notability. PamD 07:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources already in the article meet WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tři sestry (Czech band)[edit]

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

Only coverage I see is what's on page already, and that mainly focuses on the murder of one of the band's members. Someone could probably make an article on that which mentions their part in the band, but I'm not sure it's appropriate material for this article and I don't see anything else centering this subject. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This band is notable in Czechia and Slovakia as one of the earliest punk bands after the Velvet Revolution, so if it's a question of references, those can be found. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they can be then I invite you to do so and list them here. Not much use to just claim they exist without providing any evidence, now is it? After all, I already looked and I didn't see any, even in the Czech and Slovak versions of the article (nor any of the other three languages). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get snarky, remember your wikietiquette.

https://hockey-music.estranky.cz/clanky/tri-sestry/historie-tri-sester.html

https://www.unesco-czech.cz/900_101581_tri-sestry/

https://www.ireport.cz/clanky/interpreti/13438-tri-sestry

https://www.csmusic.cz/skup-41-tri-sestry

Let me know if you need more links. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hockey Music is a blog and CSMusic appears to only post press releases. I have reason, mainly because it's not a publication, to suspect UNESCO-Czech isn't the origin of that writeup and it could also be a press release. iReport is promising but it's gonna take more than just the one. So yes, more links please. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found those after a basic google search, which proves that they are out there. The band is clearly notable in Czechia and Slovakia, having strongly influenced the music scene since the countries democratized in the early 1990s, and it's puzzling to me why you don't see this. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an American, I openly admit that I know nothing about Czech or Slovak music so I can't speak to that. What I can do is look for reliable sources which evidence this claim you're making, and between the two of us there's been a lack of those so far. I can't just assume notability based on your claim that it exists. That's not to say it doesn't, but that I haven't seen it and must draw my conclusion based on that. This is as simple as Wikipedia policy gets. Now since you mention that their prominence comes in the early 1990s, perhaps that's a sign that what coverage does exist simply isn't available online and would be more easily found in contemporary newspapers and magazines. If you know of an archive for those which would have coverage on this band, that'd be a great place to look. Perhaps you'll find a treasure trove of coverage and I'll have to concede that you were correct all along. But I can't do that based solely on assumptions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't like the genre, but: although the band is probably not very well known outside the country, although their songs are not played on mainstream radio, and although the claim that "strongly influenced the music scene" is an exaggeration, it is most likely notable enough. The band is in Beat Hall of Fame, it appears in the Czech mainstream media (1, 2), it main-evented a concert to celebrate 50 years of big beat in the Czech Republic, and three books were written about it (mapping 15, 25 and 30 years of the band's existence). How many Czech bands can say that? But there is no dispute that the site is in poor condition, missing references and not sufficiently documented significance. FromCzech (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - those mainstream media articles linked above, with the 3 books on the band's history, are proof of Notability. They should be added to the article with text about what they reported. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs improvement, not deletion. For a band that goes back to the pre-Internet days and started during a Communist regime, searching requires some more effort. In addition to the sources listed by voters above, a Google Books search finds that the band is mentioned regularly in books about their country's music scene and/or rock music under Communism. Since their name is a common Czech phrase ("three sisters") a search in conjunction with frontman Lou Fanánek Hagen leads to results. His article here has some possible sources that could benefit the band's article as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (barely): somewhere in the mess of refs above is something resembling notability. I removed unsourced information from the article per BURDEN and BLP. // Timothy :: talk 01:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is sourcing exists. Star Mississippi 02:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Poles[edit]

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

Ukrainian book, not published in English, no reviews in English, no information about any awards Marcelus (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Marcelus (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there coverage in Ukrainian, the native language of author Roman Ivanychuk? Redirecting to the author is also an option if this book fails WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of this novel (though obviously not read it), even though I don't speak Ukrainian. "not published in English, no reviews in English" neither of these is relevant. Here's an article about it in Ukrainian[1] that may or may not itself count for notability, but which references a number of other sources in Ukrainian about the novel. Also there's an article:
- Бабій І.О., Семенюк О.А. Гуцульська побутова лексика в романі Р. Іваничука «Вогненні стовпи». Науковий вісник Херсонського державного університету. Лінгвістика. 2018. Вип. 33. С. 18–22[2].

Someone with some Ukrainian language language skills could probably find more sources.Jahaza (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The relevant guideline to consider is WP:NBOOK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what is in the guideline you have linked, and taking into account the links sent by @Jahaza, it appears that the book meets the notability requirements. It looks I was hasty. Marcelus (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus Possibly. I concur that the two sources are in-depth. We also need to consider whether the sources we found are reliable. The first review is from "md-eksperiment.org" portal (about). What kind of editorials control do they have (i.e. what can prevent us from calling them a blog?). The second source [3] looks academic so it is probably reliable. Overall, right now I am on the fence: if someone can point out how the first source is reliable, or find some other reliable source, I'd vote keep. PS. I think the English name of this article is poor, I'd recommend Pillars of Fire. We can discuss this on article's talk later if it is kept. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, the "md-eksperiment.org" source cites several journal articles which apparently discuss this book. One of them, Ільницький/Ilnytskyi, "Містерія Йорданської ночі", in the journal Slovo i Chas, is available online here (non-secure url). This article clearly does discuss the book at length; I don't speak Ukrainian but the book title appears in bold in the first sentence, and recurs throughout. This, along with the other journal source given by Jahaza, is enough to meet NBOOK, and it also gives me confidence that the other sources cited by the "md-eksperiment.org" article are accurately represented, and would also help to establish notability if located. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. There is clearly enough coverage to meet NBOOK, so no need for deletion. Though I do note that the article needs to be expanded, since it's current state as a stub is far from optimal, and therefore the reason for my "weak" keep vote. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if kept, the article should probably move to its Ukranian-language title, rather than this translation, since there is no English translation of the book. -- asilvering (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would contradict WP:NCBOOKS. Jahaza (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2023 (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) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almohad conquest of Ifriqiya[edit]

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

There is nothing in it that can't be added to the Almohad Caliphate article. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Although I still believe that the subject isn't notable to deserve an article, I have decided to wait and see whether the article can be improved (now that it has been renamed). M.Bitton (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Picard[edit]

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

Article is written like an advertisement, fails WP:ARTIST. It should be noted that this article has been proposed for deletion and nominated for speedy deletion previously - the concern these editors appeared to have is the (fairly credible, in my personal opinion) allegations of plagiarism against him that aren't (and can't be) mentioned in the article due to their not being published in reliable sources, although these editors never made this clear. The primary source these editors appeared to be basing this off of is this Facebook account. Tollens (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tollens (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is the same person [4], seems to attract attention over his artwork. We have enough sourcing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the existing references, the vast majority are offline. The list of Selected achievements and events in the article is a mess and needs a complete overhaul. Looking through the sources online, coverage is about the documentaries that he is the subject of: The Dark and The Wounded (2018) and James Picard: Off the Canvas (2003) also the exhibition "State of the Art Exhibition". The sources and PR refer to him as the award-winning work of Canadian artist James Picard and renowned. I cannot find anything that supports this. I am really flummoxed by this. Looking at the article's talk page I get more confused. Anyone else as confused as I am? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am too. I wasn't able to find any access to any of the offline sources anywhere, or even verify that the articles themselves exist. It seems the entire article was written by a WP:SPA back in 2010 - the combination of unverifiable (by me at least) claims, the account creating the page, and the allegations of plagiarism is bizarre. Tollens (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the entire 44 minute documentary James Picard: Off the Canvas is available on Youtube. The video was created/posted by Trifectamedia, which is a marketing firm. I watched a bit of the documentary. It is not what I consider informative. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the "Official" site for the The Dark and The Wounded, it appears to be a self publish short film that he is trying to turn into a feature length film. Unclear if it has ever been expanded. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading through the references available, I believe that most of the information is promotional, either self-published or native advertising. The subject definitely fails WP:ARTIST, and also fails WP:ANYBIO. I do not find the claims of harassment/threats credible. In that assertion, the subject holds up a threatening notes that he has claimed to received. Additionally, none of the films or exhibitions mentioned in the article rise to the level of notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening notes he claims to have received... that made it to national news. But he somehow doesn't have any other coverage? I'm as confused as you are. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent third-party coverage. There's not much out there that isn't a promotional piece (interviews, press releases). Fails WP:ARTIST. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This whole thing is bizarre. I've tried looking for sources, and given up. -- asilvering (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2023 (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 00:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Raymond[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, Czech Republic, New Zealand, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL, having served as director general of the Canadian Foreign Service Institute, as well as having an important diplomatic career. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being head of a government agency does not satisfy WP:NPOL. An "important diplomatic career" does not automatically mean a notable career. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to elected politicians and judges not public servants who head government agencies. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the policy establishes that this is limited to elected public officials. This is specially the case with judges, who in many cases are not elected to their positions. The same applies to politicians such as ministers, cabinet positions appointed by the executive branch and not elected by the public. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it applies to politicians and judges, not ambassadors or heads of government agencies. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Canadian judges aren't elected, they're appointed. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 11:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Name is too common to find anything about this person; there's a doctor in Nunavik, a student and many others with this same name. No coverage found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much coverage. Aintabli (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. Sole Keep vote provided no sources or guidelines to look at, just opinions. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source evaL:

Not NPOV IS RS: ""A L E R T – Canadian Ambassador Supports Homosexual Politics in the Czech Republic". Real Women of Canada. Retrieved 4 April 2020."
Government annoucement, not IS SIGCOV: "Diplomatic Appointments". Government of Canada. Retrieved 4 April 2020."
Name in list in event promo: "U of G to Honour 'Global Citizens' During Thematic Convocation". Campus News. June 4, 2007. Retrieved 4 April 2020.

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 00:29, 9 April 2023 (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 The Mole: Undercover in North Korea. ✗plicit 00:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Larsen - The Mole[edit]

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

I would like to propose the deletion of this article - Larsen's only notable mention is the fact that Larsen is the subject of the documentary: The Mole: Undercover in North Korea. I would like to suggest that the article covering the documentary sufficiently covers Larsen as a subject - most significantly due to the fact that none of the listed citations or any significant, reliable sources that I were able to find mentions Larsen outside the context of the documentary. askeuhd (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Denmark. askeuhd (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 11:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to The Mole: Undercover in North Korea per BIO1E - insufficient coverage outside of the documentary for a stand-alone article. A rename will be needed if this is kept. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to a report by BBC Korea on October 11, 2020, a company named 'Chosun Narae Trading Company' was mentioned in a UN panel of experts report for its alleged involvement in North Korea's illicit arms trade. This is similar to the company 'Narae Trading Agency' which appeared in Larssen's documentary as a front company for North Korea's weapons trade. As the documentary and the UN panel report share this similarity, it can be considered credible. Therefore, just as many articles related to North Korea are being maintained despite a lack of sufficient reliability and objectivity, I believe that this article should also be kept. Kloyan.L (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Walt Yoder. The article has very little information not directly related to the documentary—just the personal life section. This information would fit better on the documentary's article if independent notability cannot be established for Larsen. Uffda608 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only properly sourced and unredundant material per above. // Timothy :: talk 01:05, 9 April 2023 (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 00:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Kau[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the three sources in the article, [5] and [6] are routine transfer stories and [7] is a database listing from Sovverway. I was unable to find anything significant during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG, see for example this and this, and I think transfer coverage goes beyond routine with some personal coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[8] is a trivial story with three short paragraphs about him being injured (we get his age, that he is injured and that he has played 3 games during the season), [9] is a routine transfer story (A single line of him being signed, a single line of what he did the previous season, a quote from him, another line based on a qoute from him and then a single line stating what other players the team has signed). Alvaldi (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your definition of what is trivial and routine, it's clearly that he's getting coverage outside the norm. Ortizesp (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first reference posted by Ortizesp has several sentences of non-trivial coverage and therefore is significant. However that alone is not enough for GNG passing. Ortizesp‘s second ref and the ones already in the article are more of the routine variety. I will reconsider my vote if more references are found, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 02:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Agree with Frank's analysis - first source OK, second not enough. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources listed above are simply press releases; noticiasaominuto.com, ojogo.pt and iol.pt all have a nearly identical version of the 19 September 2019 press release about his injury lay-off picked up by record.pt (which is routine coverage), and record.pt and futebol365.pt carried a nearly identical version of the 4 July 2019 press release about his contract picked up by sapo.pt (also routine coverage). There is nothing online that comes close to WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources are utterly routine injury and transactional news. They're not SIGCOV, not independent (press releases), and violate NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Above sources have been addressed and do not show N, just ROUTINE news stories about joining a team and suffering a injury. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 18:51, 8 April 2023 (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 23:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gayatri Datar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing's really changed since the last AfD, except a small role in a film. Same issues as last time. Contested redirect, so back to AfD we go. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. having two more bit parts since the last AfD discussion, still doesn't make this individual notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The redirect was removed and the content was restored by an IP, with little to differ from the earlier revisions. Aintabli (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As noted above, not enough to show WP:NACTOR is met. Ravensfire (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2023 (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 Characters of Overwatch. Selectively. Star Mississippi 02:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bastion (Overwatch)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a standalone character - should not have been split off from the main character list. Most mentions of Bastion are trivial or extremely "geeky" and only relevant to fans (such as the articles about Bastion being temporarily cut from the game) rather than regarding Bastion as a character (which makes sense, since Bastion is one of the single least developed characters in the game). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at minimum to Characters of Overwatch. The reception section is rather weak and without any real dev detail, the rest is trivial gameplay elements that don't meet GNG. --Masem (t) 15:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I have fleshed out the reception section and added some development detail, both in regards to Bastion's story/character elements and his gameplay. Soulbust (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with you saying most mentions are "trivial". Calling sources only relevant to fans is confusing to me as most articles on Wikipedia present information that are only relevant to certain/niche audiences, and calling them "geeky" is more confusing as I don't quite understand why that matters? Taken to an extreme, calling a source "geeky" to state it isn't suitable is borderline "I don't like it." For me, Bastion separates himself from characters (such as Roadhog, if an example is needed) that I would agree would need to be fully within the Characters of Overwatch article, as his gaemplay design has actually been extremely redesigned/overhauled throughout OW and OW2's history and a good amount of the character's reception is tied to that gameplay design (and this is evident as per the sourcing found in the article). Bastion's out of game appearances are also not to be overlooked, I would say, as The Last Bastion and the reception to that short helps further establish GNG.

@Masem: I will try to find further sourcing to flesh out the reception section ........ but this article is quite new — I literally got a notification of its inclusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#New Articles (March 27 to April 2) 25 minutes before the inclusion of the article here at AfD... which I kinda find disheartening. Soulbust (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion/merging is not hatred of a subject or topic and shouldn't be confused as such. On the contrary, it's not wanting to see that topic described in a lackluster way and having the best possible version of something. If an article can only be filled with "junk", it's not flattering to the character or helpful to any readers. It's just having an article for the sake of having it.

As a character who only talks in beeps and boops, he basically has almost no character development outside a single animated short, that isn't a good sign for notability.

It is unfortunate you were disheartened, but clearly if you just wanted to add to Bastion's sources on Wikipedia, the list entry was a fine place to do so. You unilaterally made the decision to split Bastion off, and decisions have consequences if people disagree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to imply that I have described the character in a lackluster way, then I would have to disagree with that. I think the character being a (functionally) non-verbal robot is irrelevant in regard to if he can be developed. There are plenty of characters who are mute, silent, etc. It means nothing as far as if they can be developed or not. The short isn't some non-discussed thing either (there are plenty of sources that help establish its notability/inclusion in the context of this individual character article).

Also, I believe your "decisions have consequences" wording seems like rather intense and stern wording for something like creating a Wikipedia article on a legitimate subject. Soulbust (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Characters of Overwatch - Agreed that this should not have been split out of the main character article for an individual article. The actual sources in the reception section are trivial mentions, largely being reviews of the Overwatch games themselves with a few mentions of this particular character as part of those overall reviews. Most of the other sources being used are things like game guides or just routine reports on the current state of the game (the "character was temporarily removed" and "character was re-added back" type articles, as well as reports on balance/patch notes). And then, there's quite a few sources here that seem to just be WP:REFBOMBING, where the character is literally just namedropped in a single sentence. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps being mentioned that I split this article from the main character list. I did not do that in what I am assuming is the conventional way. I wrote it from scratch. For transparency. Soulbust (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless, you knew the list entry did exist, given that it was a redirect to the character list for 7 years now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah obviously, but I didn't consult that list going into this. Soulbust (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I want to reply/expand on a couple points brought up. First, the topic of splitting. I didn't consult the Characters of Overwatch list to split the Bastion character off into its own article. This is at least somewhat important because it is 1) mentioned in the nomination as something that "shouldn't" have happened; and 2) later mentioned in the context as something that isn't helpful to readers ("If an article can only be filled with "junk", it's not flattering to the character or helpful to any readers. It's just having an article for the sake of having it.")

Using this tool, this article from infobox through categories is 19,961 characters and the section on Bastion in the Characters of list/article is 4,104 characters. Obviously referencing/categories/other formatting account for some of this nearly 5x increase in size. However, it would be disingenuous to assert that the (still) large increase (when excluding that formatting) in size is all "trivial" information. Again, I'm saying what I'm saying now from the perspective of not having looked/consulted/copy+pasted the Characters of section during the making of this stand-alone article (or really at any point for a meaningful amount of time, for reasons I will touch on later). This article adds ~14/15K bytes and about 30 new references. I want to be very clear here. I am not arguing about for a sheer numbers have to automatically justify notability take here. I am only mentioning those numbers to state that there would be a negative effect if merged into the Characters list. Because either we merge most/all of this and create a huge chunk on Bastion (I would argue, perhaps an undue weight chunk). Or we merge minor/no amounts of this and lose a lot of valuable information that only makes sense to include in this such separate article (I disagree with opinions on how information about gameplay elements are trivial and @Masem: would like to hear why that information is being considered trivial so that I can make some improvements in that regard).

Now, the issue of a separate article being "lackluster" or filled with "junk". I don't know what could be considered junk here. This article includes: 1) Development information about the character's characterization and place in Overwatch lore, described and cited in the least fancruft-way possible. Then, 2) Information about the character's development in regards to gameplay elements during the original game's beta period, then post-launch (2017), then OW2's pre-launch and beta period (2021), and that game's post launch (2022); with 2b) information about the character's art/visual design, again presented in a non-fancruft manner.; 3) the character's appearances in video games and other media; and 4) reception to the character. That all might seem obvious to you (whomever is reading) and that's because it is. It's obvious, but more importantly it's tight. There's no distracted or out-of-place "junk" tangent that's included here to try and stretch this out to a ridiculous degree.

And so, back to this article being perhaps "not flattering to the character or helpful to any readers." @Zxcvbnm: I think sometimes in these sorts of AfD discussions we forget that us editors are also readers. The reason why I didn't consult the Characters of Overwatch listing/article in making this Bastion one is because in the past when I've tried to read it for other purposes (i.e. while playing the game, just to look at it, etc.), I've found it really bloated and hard to navigate. Its hard to read. There's no real visual component (whether it be an image, colors, table/chart related to an overview or something) that helps its reading flow. It's just chunk after chunk of text. And some of them, I feel are actually too long for such a listing yet still lack information that could be included in a separate article. I'd actually be in argument of shortening the segments on that listing in favor of expanding/splitting to separate articles (of course, where applicable; like I don't really think Ramattra or Sojourn, for example, would be able to stand-alone with their own article, at least at this moment). These shortened segments in my mind would cover just the basics that could be covered for every character (date they were introduced/announced, voice actor, the most basic of gameplay elements [i.e. tank/damage/support, their current core abilities {I think the development history/reworking of gameplay abilities would be perfect for Development sections in stand-alone articles}], and the most basic of lore elements [country of origin, occupation, in-universe affiliation]). But in that case, Bastion has things past that, like how the Character listing currently mentions The Last Bastion in the Bastion segment? We could remove that and make it less bloated, because there's a Bastion article that exists now. Maybe the onus to do this sort of clean-up is on someone like me, trying to make this stand-alone article. And I'll be cool with doing that. I think it'd be the sensible thing to do.

And finally, I'd like to really better understand where this REFBOMBING takes place, or maybe receive a suggestion @Rorshacma: on how to improve this article in regards to that. Because, the referencing overwhelmingly includes articles about Bastion in specific in one way or another, or mention the character's place in the lore in a thorough fashion (i.e. Polygon timeline source). The only real exceptions are things that help reference contextual information about the game (i.e. Bastion being a defense and then a damage character but we need a source on the context of when/why that change happened, for example). So I don't see which point in the article in where REFBOMBING comes into play. The Reception article includes sourcing to reviews of the game, yes. But the context is important. Those reviews were at launch, and if in a review of the whole game, a specific character is singled out as being "overpowered" (or at least, in the perception of players as being "overpowered"), then is that not a relevant thing to include in the character's Reception section? Does a source citing that information have to be entirely about Bastion? In these review sources, it's not a trivial name drop, as it's much closer to a contextual point about the character's game play reception.

Sorry that this comment was long, but it matters to me to be clear and thorough about this and where I'm coming from on these points. Soulbust (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This whole screed reads like a "no, it is they who are wrong". It's actually rather simple; a character is notable when they have 3 pieces of WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources, that actually puts the character in context. So far, the evidence that those exist has not been shown. This Kotaku article is the only one I can find, and a single article is not enough. Cramming a bunch of trivial mentions there will just make it harder to spot anything significant, if there is any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you got that out of what I said, then either you misunderstood/I miscommunicated or you are purposefully ignoring my point. I'm assuming the former. I didn't say anyone was wrong. I pinged the other users who have added to this conversation asking for elaboration and suggestion on how to improve the points they brought up. That sort of improvement discussion is valid and I feel like should have happened in a talk page convo before an AfD got put up almost immediately after WPVG listed this under its weekly new articles posting. But any rate, like I said over on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Korb, I don't love the idea of WP:THREE because it's arbitrary. But I'll play along. Like you pointed out, this counts as one. Here's two more, and two bonus ones, just in case those three were too Kotaku centric. Soulbust (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree any of those additional ones are SIGCOV. They are either announcements or stats oriented towards fans. And WP:THREE might be arbitrary, but it's the lowest amount where even lackluster sources will still indicate notability. If a couple of fantastic sources exist, a whole article could be based on them; these don't rise to that level. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two Kotaku ones I added are stat-based. And them being oriented towards fans shouldn't factor in to whether or not they are considered "significant coverage" because that guideline has no mention of that distinction one way or the other. Soulbust (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned sources are still valid imo, but I think these present perhaps better examples of SIGCOV: this source about his gameplay and how players felt about it, and this source elaborating on character elements (Mar. 2020). Soulbust (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of Overwatch. The sources above are better examples of reasons why we need to deprecate Kotaku as a source than how this character has found noteworthiness independent of the game. All commentary appears to be in-universe and not about the character's impact external to its in-universe role. czar 04:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed sources that discuss Bastion outside of the Overwatch game. There is also this that discusses the character existing externally to its in-universe role.

Your point on Kotaku is understood but it is also moot here, since we currently do list it as a RS over at WP:VG/S. Regardless of this, I did provide multiple non-Kotaku sources in this discussion and the article has plenty of such sources that are used in a relevant and appropriate manner. I made many edits in the past day that help this article achieve the things the WP:42 link you provided is asking for. In this AfD, I've already provided sourcing that is SIGCOV, and that sourcing (as well as the rest of the article's sourcing) is coming from RS'es, and for the the most part it is independent of Blizzard's sourcing, which is only used when applicable (such as using Blizzard's senior designer Michael Chu as a reference on Bastion's original agender design).

Are you saying all commentary from the Kotaku sources appears to be in-universe? Because the Reception section has plenty of sourcing (including non-Kotaku sourcing) on how players and writers feel about Bastion out of the franchise's narrative? Soulbust (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the Eurogamer source discusses Bastion? It's mostly summarizing the animated short itself, not making any observations on the character. Unless we're just skimming titles and throwing them out as sources, there's nothing to take from it that improves a standalone article on Bastion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is skimming titles. It improves the article by providing referencing on an animation featuring Bastion. This is rather important for an Overwatch character in particular, considering that Blizzard has yet to release a legitimate story or narrative mode within the video games. The Eurogamer source discussing the short discusses the Bastion animation's narrative and even discusses the way that the game, despite not having a story mode, ties into Bastion's place in the franchise's lore as depicted in the animation (the Eichenwalde map). Perhaps this Verge source is a better example of SIGCOV, but there is pretty obviously independent third-party sourcing from reliable sources that discuss the animation. Yes, this source isn't about the character in a 100% absolute manner, but trying to make that sort of distinction between character and its depiction in media seems rather silly when we are talking about official Blizzard media in which the character is the focus of. SIGCOV sources that discuss the character's depiction in the game that are treated as such SIGCOV, so the same should apply to sources that discuss, in significant coverage, Bastion's depiction in these animations, since they are part of the franchise. Soulbust (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These last two responses are longer than the entirety of the commentary between the two linked articles. There is generally a lot of Overwatch character content as a character-focused franchise, but these articles don't articulate anything exceptional about this character apart from the fact that a related animated short and Lego kit have been released. That can be covered within an existing article with no loss to the reader. The articles are closer to extended tweets or PR than secondary source commentary. My comment about Kotaku was in relation to the links above: [10][11][12][13]. Re: the referencing overwhelmingly includes articles about Bastion in specific This unfortunately does not mean much when there's no encyclopedic content within said articles. These articles are closer to tweets in quality and effort than the smallest articles in a reputable publication. czar 00:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the Kotaku sources. The latter two are especially obvious examples of sigcov to me, and the very last one was brought up by the nominator as such so I am not alone in my opinion of that one at least.

Regardless, I understand your point about the Bastion having perhaps less articulated sigcov than other characters for a character-focused franchise like Overwatch.

I am going to ask you if you believe this source discussing Bastion's visual and gameplay redesign for OW2 is sigcov to you. Because, I guess we've been having trouble agreeing so far with what is and what isn't sigcov and am just wondering if that NME sources crosses the threshold for you. Soulbust (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Masem. For the few mentions in sources, they don't really get into the reception or significance of this character. It's not the type of coverage you would need to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I addressed Masem’s point about the reception section. So I don’t understand what you mean about the references not delving into the reception for Bastion? There’s five entire paragraphs filled with references about how vg journalists and players received Bastion. Soulbust (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some concise and properly sourced material to Characters of Overwatch (no Fancruft) per above. // Timothy :: talk 01:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what information that is currently in the article do you consider fancruft? Soulbust (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deshbhakti Ke Pavan Teerth[edit]

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

Promo piece on a non-notable book. None of the sources cited meets WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better. (The closest we get is the Tribune piece listed under external links, but that alone isn't enough.) There is nothing in the draft to indicate WP:NBOOK notability, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Military, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:BKCRIT, a book may be considered notable if it has won a major literary award. According to the current revision, the Indian government has awarded 'Rahul Sankrityayan Award' for the year 2018–19. There's the page Mahapandit Rahul Sankrityayan Award, which might be that award. If so, this might be notable, although I'm not sure whether this award may be considered "major". Aintabli (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I did consider that. But as the award is genre-specific (travel writing), and national only at that, I don't think it is particularly 'major'. And in any case, that article is unreferenced, which raises questions about its own notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the discussion above. Aintabli (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't consider the Rahul Sankrityayan Award enough for NBOOK#2 -- my mental scale for a "major" prize is more like the Booker Prize or at least Governor General's Awards. It looks like the Sahitya Akademi Award would be the more "major" option in India. Moreover, it would be truly strange for a book to win a major award without getting the two reviews needed for NBOOK#1. (I think NBOOK#2 is useful largely for quite old books where it's hard to find the reviews.) So, I haven't done enough research to confidently say "delete", but I wouldn't say "keep" without two reviews located. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2023 (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 Amanda Marshall. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collections (Amanda Marshall album)[edit]

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

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

Unsourced articles about greatest hit albums. To be fair, these were created at a different time in Wikipedia history -- back in the naughts, the practice was more oriented toward Wikipedia providing a completist directory of all albums by notable artists regardless of sourcing or the lack thereof. But that's long since been deprecated, and an album now has to have its own standalone notability claim, and WP:GNG-worthy sourcing about it, to pass WP:NALBUM as a suitable topic for a standalone article separately from the artist's BLP.
But as repacks of previously available material, greatest hits compilations rarely have the kind of analytical coverage that's required, and these certainly aren't exceptions: I was able to find a couple of short blurbs about Intermission, but not enough to really reach the GNG bar, while Collections basically has nothing at all.
Her studio albums also have sourcing issues, but are salvageable with better referencing, but best-of comps generally don't really need their own standalone articles anymore. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to the artist's page per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and NALBUM. No objection to redirect, but I think its an unlikely search term. // Timothy :: talk 01:24, 9 April 2023 (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 00:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ebadi[edit]

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

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Single source in article is database and fails SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 07:12, 9 April 2023 (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 00:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Ammar[edit]

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

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting A1lfcIRQ's "keep" !vote on the article's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per A1lfcIRQ. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Win Win is the best source I can find, which is just an image caption. I note that the two keep !voters haven't provided any evidence to support their claim of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Above Keep provides no sources. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 19:02, 8 April 2023 (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 Tři sestry (Czech band). (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Švédská trojka[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC notability criteria. The only used source is the website of the band. FromCzech (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tři sestry (Czech band). Perhaps a brief mention that the album contains a Dylan song, using the citation in the article, can be merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: Due to the different meanings of "cs:Švédská trojka" in Czech, I am not sure if it does not meet the conditions for deletion according to WP:R#DELETE No.2. FromCzech (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tři sestry (Czech band) off of seeing this. If that article stays then redirect this there, but if not then delete this as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tři sestry (Czech band). It appears that the band is going to survive their AfD, so their deficient album articles can be redirected to there. This album seems not to have attracted reliable reviews or other coverage, at least none that ended up in searchable books or websites today. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tři sestry (Czech band). If target is deleted, delete. // Timothy :: talk 01:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tři sestry (Czech band).If target is deleted then delete.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2023 (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 Tři sestry (Czech band). ✗plicit 12:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pijánovka[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC notability criteria. FromCzech (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tři sestry (Czech band) off of seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Švédská trojka. If the band article stays then redirect this there, but if not then delete this as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere: Imho it is not systematic to have a page for every insignificant song, even if it's just a redirect. Or do you think there should be a redirect page for each Tři Sestry's song from each of their albums? Pijánovka is no different from those that are not here, so I see no reason why this song specifically should have a redirect page. Is there a precedent for this? FromCzech (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are generally preferred for a number of reasons such as names of non-notable subjects making for good search terms, preserving page history for edit attribution, etc. Unless this term could be better used directing elsewhere, in which case perhaps converting to a disambiguation page would be preferred, then I don't see the harm. Redirects are cheap, after all. However, at the rate the band AfD is going, I suspect my vote will end up leaning delete here anyway so it doesn't matter much. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tři sestry (Czech band). It appears that the band is going to survive their AfD, so related articles can be redirected to there. This song has no coverage of its own except for some minor fan trivia on what the lyrics are about. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tři sestry (Czech band). If target is deleted, delete. // Timothy :: talk 01:50, 9 April 2023 (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 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Koothattukulam[edit]

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

Article without any sources since its creation. I've been looking for both online and offline sources, but haven't found anything. It's true accuracy is in question and no editors has shown interest in fixing the issue. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Koothattukulam until a properly-sourced article is written.Mccapra (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely unsourced. Right now this is a completely unneeded "history of" CFORK from the stub Koothattukulam. Since none of the material is sourced, merge is not a valid AtD. Redirect is a very unlikely search term and the primary already appears, but no objection if someone feels strongly. // Timothy :: talk 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TimothyBlue argues. Mccapra (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2023 (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 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redzwan Atan[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP on a footballer with no evidence presented of WP:SPORTBASIC. A Singaporean search yields only Wikipedia mirrors and stats sites. After other searches, the best I can find are ESPN 1, ESPN 2 and Straits Times, all woefully inadequate in terms of depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sports. 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 16:27, 5 April 2023 (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 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Yanchev (footballer, born 1974)[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage for WP:SPORTBASIC. Through searching in Maltese sources, I found an image caption in Times of Malta and a passing mention in Independent. Most Bulgarian sources are clearly about Emil Yanchev (footballer, born 1999) rather than this person. Still, there are some sources about the 1974 Yanchev. Blitz has a transfer announcement which briefly lists his previous clubs but we would need more than this to establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2023 (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 Life Is.... History is under the redirect if sourcing can be identified. Star Mississippi 02:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missin' You (It Will Break My Heart)[edit]

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

Tagged as {{unreferenced}} since 2008 and still unreferenced to this day. A Google Books search finds three bare mentions naming it in lists of songs; a Google web search finds the lyrics, but I'm not spotting anything to suggest it's notable enough for its own article as opposed to just being listed in Ken Hirai discography (where it's already listed—good job us). I checked Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs to make sure this wasn't a situation where just verifiably existing was enough for an article. I notice that page also advises "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." -sche (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -sche (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Started a related AfD for the album at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Is... If that gets kept then I vote to redirect there, though with my doubts about that album's notability in mind I would primarily suggest this either get deleted or redirected elsewhere. Either way, this song definitely isn't getting a keep from me from the lack of coverage I've seen. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch all of that. Life Is... is definitely getting kept, and per Dekimasu below this one is probably as well. As much as I don't like the idea of leaving an article on the promise of sources that we don't readily have, it appears I'm in the minority on that being a reason to delete more often than not. Consider me a no-vote here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The single went to #4 in the national Oricon chart in Japan in 2002, per sources here (Oricon) and here (news tabloid). As for other coverage, most of it is probably on paper for a song from 2002 in Japan. Keeping or marking as r with possibilities both seem fine to me. The reference to the producer can be verified by Sony Music itself. Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekimasu. Ss112 00:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate album or discography. Not every charting song needs an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Life Is...: per above. Fails GNG and NSONG. // Timothy :: talk 02:14, 9 April 2023 (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 12:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media Management Tool List[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST in that while each of these appears to exist, this grouping has not been presented by any WP:RS and there is no clear definition of what should be included in this list. See also WP:LISTCRUFT ("Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas"; "The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable"). Perhaps better served by several categories rather than a list. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, and Lists. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's odd that this page was created in a single edit, complete with a multiple issues template for notability and sources. The other few recent creations by this user appear to be a but suspect as well; I'd encourage others to look into this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a product catalogue. Fails WP:LISTN either way. Ajf773 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. // Timothy :: talk 02:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Genovese (artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. 4 pageviews in 30 days for an American BLP is very low. Edwardx (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, California, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I’m seeing sufficient coverage, both in depth and continuing, that I’m not comfortable with deletion. Page views may be low, but irrelevant as sourcing is sufficient in my mind. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although at the present it's more of a resume than an encyclopedic article, the sources are enough to keep, and hopefully at some point the page will expand. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ARTIST lists 4 criteria (of which one need to be met), and I'm not convinced that the article in its current form demonstrates that. Perhaps if additional context is provided to supplement the "single sentence article" it might aide in convincing me that WP:ARTIST is met. MetricMaster (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article fails WP:ARTIST. Internet search shows user-generated content or websites for group shows, but no reliable independent sources. It doesn't matter how many views the page gets. The subject is not notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviewed the sources. Mostly local and quite a few dead links. Please note that the coverage ends at 2016, so there has been no effort or interest in keeping this article up-to-date by any editor. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and I'm not seeing anything to show they meet WP:NARTIST.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discounting the blocked sockpuppet there does not appear to be a strong consensus one way or another. As a suggestion, perhaps elaboration on which specific sources show notability and/or why they are insufficient would help form consensus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The items referenced in the article, if they are verifiable, are insufficient to show WP:NARTIST. The article fails to show that Genovese has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. As I have previously commented, the references are mostly local and quite a few are dead links. He is a working artist who exhibits, but I cannot find any material online that shows notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing in the article is problematic (there are a lot of dubious sources here, source 11 being a link to the Frost Art Museum homepage for instance, while source 9 is a 404 - let alone the others already flagged as failing verification - and this is typical of the quality of references), there simply is little or even arguably no evidence subject passes WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't even a real notability claim in the article. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2023 (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 redirect to Wikt:powersports. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Powersports[edit]

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

This has been completely unreferenced since its creation in 2006. Normally, if an article were unreferenced, I might just tag it, but someone already did tag it as {{unreferenced}}...back in 2009, and no-one's added any sources in the last 13+ years. A Google Books search turns up various mentions of the word powersports in advertisements in Cycle World Magazine, but I haven't spotted any books which cover it in-depth in a way that would suggest an encyclopedia article could be written citing them. A Google web search also brings up mostly advertisements or commercial sites selling things where "powersports" appears only as a keyword/buzzword. -sche (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. -sche (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced for 20 years, gives you an idea of how non-notable this is. Sure, it's a term, but DICDEF isn't what we're here for. Nothing found that discusses the term or the concept at length. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFD is not cleanup - Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiktionary has am entry for this term, which is all that's needed. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would an interwiki link to the wiktionary article be a good alternative to deletion here? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. But if it is, I would support it. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 13:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect - Per above: soft redirect to the Wikitionary page seems appropriate. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - using {{Wiktionary redirect}}. Silikonz💬 14:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary per above. // Timothy :: talk 09:39, 11 April 2023 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Émile Charon[edit]

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

Most the article is quotes from his own book. I can't find any evidence he meets WP:AUTHOR. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Spirituality, and Science. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for evidence of a WP:AUTHOR pass and couldn't find it. We'd need documented indications that he produced an influential, or at the very least recognized, body of work. A smidge of attention in fringe circles for a single book (Theorie de la Relativité Complexe) won't cut it. It's possible for weird ideas to be noteworthy, and it's possible to become wiki-notable for promulgating one, but we need reliable sources from outside the weird-idea bubble to support that claim. Here, there's barely an indication from within the weird-idea bubble. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not really make notability either as a scientist or a philosopher. Entirely self-sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Draftify - Looks like an interesting nut (not a hard-shell fruit, not a metallic fastener), and an article will be in order if secondary reliable sources can be found within six months reporting that he is an interesting pseudo-scientist. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes fairly WP:GNG. (WP:NEXIST), for example:

Le Monde 1980 (here)
Le Monde 1988 (here)
L'Express 2014 (here)
DB (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV in any reliable sources, just a couple non-neutral puff pieces in media that can't actual be used as sources. Can't write a WP:V article, shouldn't have an article. - car chasm (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Le Monde and L'Express sources linked about look like in-depth reliable sources, in very high-profile publications, directly and in depth about him. The characterization of them as "non-neutral puff pieces in media" is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT, applied to the sources; these are a major national newspaper and news magazine respectively and their choice to print such pieces makes notability clear. There is no valid policy- or guideline-based rationale for rejecting these sources. There are also published reviews of his translated books: Cosmology: Theories of the Universe (JSTOR 4025388/doi:10.1017/S0007087400011675; doi:10.1093/gji/23.2.261-b) and Man in Search for Himself (JSTOR 23574449), enough for a separate case for notability through WP:AUTHOR. The fact that the first of these reviews (linked twice above) is quite negative is irrelevant for notability, and possibly quite helpful to allay WP:FRINGE concerns. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are published reviews of Charon's books in academic journals. Examples, [14] (Scottish Journal of Theology), [15] (The British Journal for the History of Science), [16] (Contemporary Physics), (Churchman (journal)) [17]. If anyone has full access to these reviews and can re-write the article by removing the nonsense that is currently on it and expanding with these reviews, the article would be worth keeping in my opinion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psychologist Guy, I managed to pull your first source. Here's a main highlight:

Unfortunately I find it difficult to acknowledge in Charon an authority for thought which obliges me to accept what he says. When I can check the sources of his dogmatic pronouncements I detect arbitrary selection and tendentious distortion. I am un- certain about his consistency in the formulation and use of precarious theses. I am not presuaded that he could take scholarly responsi-bility for pregnant affirmations which seek to win our confidence. Speculative writers, it may be said, inevitably put their work at risk in these respects—though Whitehead did not—and yet their chal-lenge to accepted ways of thinking and living are none the less fruitful. In Charon's case, a debatable 'advance' in the methodology of physics is the jumping-off point for layer upon layer of 'generalising' projects in other fields, none of them tackled in practice. They are not thrown off wantonly, and the ambition to emulate Descartes and Einstein is not immodestly conceived. Yet, if one reflects on the new practice which this speculation is intended to promote, in biology, psycho-analysis, religion, art, politics, one does have not to be an anti-Gnostic Christian to suspect that a garden-path is being paved, which may lead only to some sophisticated French version of Scientology, more civilised no doubt but just as ill-founded as the American version which has recently hit the headlines. Caveat emptor!

So yes, pretty heavily criticized. It's a mix of focusing on the book with only some focus on Charon himself, so I'm still unsure on the WP:NFRINGE question unless there was more significant coverage like that outside of book reviews (i.e., slightly more secondary commentary). KoA (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't really have heads or tails on if they meet notability for WP:NFRINGE, but I do agree that the Le Monde and L'Express sources are not appropriate here and essentially do come across as puff pieces. NFRINGE even cautions about news sources like that. That's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but rather a WP:DUE issue. Those are not reliable sources for scientific content. Psychologist Guy may have the better avenue depending on the quality/depth of those sources. KoA (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are solid arguments here for keeping, in that the subject has demonstrable WP:NOTABILITY in the form of WP:SIGCOV satisfying WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. On the other hand, there are well-reasoned assertions that the subject falls short of WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG requirements and that therefore the article should be deleted. Draftifying the article would be a possible consideration. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying is basically just saying to let someone else delete it in six months without having enough courage of your convictions to stand behind your attempt to delete it. It is a cop-out. We're at AfD, we should make a decision now. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The poor man had the misfortune to live up until 1998, so only living two or three years of his life within the bright searchlight beam of the Internet. Google Books throws up a number of his works, with work still in print/on Kindle, while I'm not sure where you'd look for information on a French writer if NOT in Le Monde or L'Express! This entry in the French National Library certainly points to a significant body of work, although it has to be noted the sourcing in the French article is even worse than the English one. He's also cited quite widely - again, bearing in mind he's pre-Internet. The three French pieces presented here alone get him past WP:GNG, the citations, existence and discussion of a significant body of work give us a clear presumption of notability that goes beyond that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Sources in the article are not bad and per above: [18], [19], [20] are SIGCOV, you actually know something substantial about the subject after reading these. I think the entries from the French national library [21] show that there almost certainly more sources, and the subject probably passes an SNG. // Timothy :: talk 02:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax transmitting station[edit]

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

Another small television/radio relay station serving parts of Halifax, West Yorkshire. Article is entirely made up of WP:OR and cites no sources. Links go to general lists of these stations, of which thousands exist. No assertion of notability, WP:BEFORE reveals no significant coverage of this specific transmitter to justify it being the subject of its own article. WP:NOTDIR of radio transmitters and frequencies. Flip Format (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anorak interests should not be over-represented on a general encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree totally with this notion as I don't consider information about television transmitters to be an anorak interest as the article is adding to people's knowledge of the UK's broadcasting infrastructure.
Weak keep Halifax is a large town and a transmitter serving a large conurbation makes it much more notable than other transmitter articles that Flip Format has nominated for discussion. That said the article could do with being improved and more up-to-date references added.Rillington (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Redirect to Emley Moor transmitting station to preserve article history. It's included in a list of relay stations there. Tend to agree with the nominator this is WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. No assertion of notability. Doesn't need a separate article. Rupples (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Article.

With a bare miniimum of effort, several sources and information about how Halifax Transmitting Station broadcasts regional stations to over 12,000 people were able to be found.

Just because prior editors couldn't put in the effort, does not mean sources and valuable services & information about this national communication infrastructure can't be found.

Keep. 79.70.70.215 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't discuss the site at length and aren't really helping prove GNG. See the chart below. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source analysis, including the sources added by the IP today:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Flip Format
https://yellpo.com/countries/united-kingdom/cities/wakefield/items/halifax-transmitting-station	The website is not operated by Arqiva	The page appears to think Halifax transmitting station is a branch of Halifax (bank)	No in-depth, relevant or accurate information given, the site yellpo.com is apparently an "All World Places Map Directory"	✘ No
https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Halifax	The website is not operated by Arqiva	No reason to suggest this site is not reliable	Database entry, site lists every transmitter and relay site in the UK	✘ No
https://www.radiodns.uk/transmitters/se102241	The website is not operated by Arqiva	~ Too little information on page to determine its reliability as a source	Database entry, no in depth coverage	✘ No
https://www.satbroadcasts.com/DVB-T_transmitter_ch_27_Halifax_in_United%20Kingdom.html	The website is not operated by Arqiva	Inaccurate and incomplete information given, page appears to think a nonexistent radio station called "The Space" broadcasts from the site	Database entry, no in depth coverage	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20100527074725/http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/halifax.php	The website is not operated by Arqiva	MB21 is a reliable source of basic information and photos of UK transmitter sites	Page consists only of pictures and very brief descriptive text	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20101203232727/http://www.ukfree.tv/shutdowndetail.php?tx=SE103242	The website is not operated by Arqiva	No reason to suggest this site is not reliable	Database entry, site lists every transmitter and relay site in the UK	✘ No
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/digitalswitchover.html	? Dead link	? Dead link, but appears to have been on a "free hosting" service	? Dead link	? Unknown
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}}.

Flip Format (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the assessment above. It's a utilitarian tower, not unlike hundreds of others. In no way a historic structure. The sources above are pretty much useless in proving notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 02:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher McKitterick[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Science fiction and fantasy. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this is related to Florida, except that I was born there? Cmckit (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of my students alerted me to this potential deletion - I imagine they'll make the necessary edits re: the article's Academics, but the quick reasoning for the article not to be deleted:

I founded (at least) four science fiction research and educational organizations, including AboutSF, the International Science Fiction Consortium, the University of Kansas Ad Astra Center for Science Fiction, and now the nonprofit Ad Astra Institute for Science Fiction and the Speculative Imagination.

For 30 years I led the Gunn Center for the Study of Science Fiction with James Gunn and Kij Johnson, where I organized and led dozens of international conferences, organized and introduced many talks, designed and taught several courses and workshops that attracted attendees from around the world, helped found two international science fiction centers (in India and China), designed and taught many for-credit courses for a science fiction program, and educated countless people who've gone on to successful writing and teaching careers in the field.

After working professionally as a technical, scientific, and games writer, I developed a technical and scientific writing program and five courses for the University of Kansas, taught them so for several years, and served as KU Technical Communications Liaison, helping several departments and centers build their own writing courses and programs.

I've been invited to give several keynote addresses for universities and professional organizations, as well as given dozens of other academic and professional talks and readings.

I've been invited to write many academic articles, papers, and chapters, as well as to edit academic magazines and books. I've also published many more academic pieces on spec. I've also created and edited many Wikipedia articles, and encouraged my students to do the same.

I've developed several digital humanities websites and created massive amounts of educational content for them, one of which (that I worked on for three decades) garnered much recognition in the science fiction field.

This is in addition to my creative career, for which I've also created and taught several for-credit courses, workshops, and master classes.

I hope this helps! Cmckit (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page created and edited by subject of article, which is in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. 2001:49D0:8511:3:683E:901E:3E2:CCCC (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey @Cmckit. I'm a normal user without any powers or anything here and I've ruffled some feathers as well. Basically, they don't want people or acquaintances of the said person being involved in the creation of their own articles for various reasons. I'm sure you or anyone else didn't mean to break any rules or do anything wrong, but it happens a lot and it's not usually perceived positively. There were also some major rule and just general mindset changes towards notability on the website since the article was first posted here that likely affected the article's existence when it may not have previously. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @KatoKungLee - that's what I would have suspected. But I thought that was resolved several years ago, shortly after it was created, after discussion with a Wikipedia administrator (somewhere in the article's early history). Thank you for the info! Cmckit (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cmckit, the article was pretty much a resume; it's less of a resume now. Your arguments here for keeping the article are also like a resume. Please see WP:GNG, and specifically applicable here are WP:AUTHOR and perhaps WP:PROF. Either way, what the article needs (and that's only one of the ways in which we differ fro LinkedIn) is SECONDARY sourcing. The article right now does not have a single independent reliable secondary source--and we just cannot have that. It is entirely possible that the subject (you) is notable, but the article needs to prove that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Check my comment below. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply - the academic section you previously deleted would be useful in response to the deletion reasoning re: academic. I see what you're saying about how the content would be better in narrative form than in just line-item facts, though!

I don't understand what you mean about no secondary sourcing - it has many references and external links (even more before you deleted them, too). I've added a few more per recommendation. Thank you. Cmckit (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was going to say that he fails WP:NCREATIVE (not every writer is notable) and first needs an entry in SFE. But - he has entry in SFE (according to IA, since last year...). So, accordingly, I think he does pass NCREATIVE/NBIO now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: So, you have provided one source that meets the "independent, reliable, secondary, significant" criteria, but you need multiple sources. Are you saying that you had found more? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article in a specialized encyclopedia about him may satisfy WP:ANYBIO #2. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Quoting from the note attached to ANYBIO#2, Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer. (Emphasis mine) So, based on this, if it passed ANYBIO criteria 2, this would've surely closed as a "speedy keep" two weeks ago, since this is a fairly high bar to reach, and seems to be more stringent than GNG. Is my reasoning here logical, or am I missing something? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available. SFE, by definition, is not a general purpose encyclopaedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point, given that that project listed many specialized encyclopedias in its database. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Some of those specialist ones have notes saying that inclusion in them doesn't guarantee notability, and none seem to be even close to the size of SFE, rather containing a nucleus of vital topics. I would challenge the utility of SFE as a notability guarantee, as whilst SFE does have some restrictions on who can and can't be included, they: a). Are fundamentally biased towards English-language writers, and exclude non-English language writers (which makes relying on it an issue from a systemic bias standpoint); b). Give an article to virtually anyone who has written an English-language science fiction novel, or the equivalent in smaller works. I cannot find a single AfD which was kept solely because of the presence of the subject in SFE, rather it was due to the presence of other indicators of notability in addition to the SFE article. Those are not present here. Indeed, you yourself even said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenants in fiction SFE entry is reliable, but more would be needed. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mako001 We are veering a bit off topic, but I fully agree with you regarding the English bias of SFE. At the same time, Wikipedia has no choice but to reflect such biases, we are not here to WP:RIGHT them (although projects like WP:WIR are very much welcome). I hear what you are saying that we have just one source. I generally also agree GNG requires two sources, but when one source is a specialist encyclopedia, I feel we are right smack in the very center of borderline notability. Hence my "weak" qualification for my vote, as given the choice, I'd rather we have an article then not, per WP:NOTPAPER. And yes, to repeat, you can make a fair point that strict reading of GNG implies he is not notable with just one source. In the end, that's why we discuss and semi-vote on such borderline cases, and I think per my rationale above I'll stay with my "weak keep". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes gng and NBIO. this supports my claim.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 20:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. That is from the university he works at. To support GNG or NBIO, the source must be independent. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sources discussed above seem ok for the CREATIVE notability. Not a strong case, but it's just enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Please clarify which sources you are referring to, as the one provided by HelpingWorld does nothing for notability, and there has been only a single secondary, reliable, independent source given here that gives this person significant coverage, which is SFE. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On NCREATIVE:

The person is regarded as an important figure no, or this would be an obvious and easy keep or is widely cited by peers or successors also no; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique no evidence of this; or
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, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) also no evidence of this; or
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument definitely not, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition not "substantial", (c) won significant critical attention not "significant", or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums also, definitely not.

On NBIO (or rather ANYBIO):

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; cannot find any awards this person has won or been nominated for, besides a single non-notable (and insignificant) award "Analytical Laboratory (AnLab) Readers' Award for Best Novelette"or
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field;^[1] no, has not, or this would be an obvious and easy keep or
The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).no, has an SFE entry, but that is not a national biographical dictionary

And in terms of GNG, so far, only one independent, reliable, secondary source has been found, SFE (Science Fiction Encyclopedia). GNG requires multiple such sources.

So, the subject does not meet the general or subject-specific notability guidelimes. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely borderline notability, but he's not done yet, and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: No-one has said that BLPREQUESTDELETE did apply here, so I'm not sure why you brought that up? We also don't keep articles just because they "might become notable in the future", see WP:CRYSTAL. So far, this article has waited for well over a decade to become notable, but still hasn't made it yet. Can you give more than one source that fulfils the requirement (independent, reliable, secondary, published) to count towards GNG? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inquiry. May I ask why you've felt the need to comment on every !vote that didn't agree with deletion? Do you have any personal or financial interest in this outcome? I've looked back through your last 2,000 contributions, and I don't see that you've participated in any other deletion discussions, so I'd like to understand better what's happening here before I answer your queries. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Because I want to get an actual discussion here, and draw out reasoning that will assist the closer in making a clear and informed decision, particularly given the borderline notability of the subject. That was the aim of the discussion with Piotrus. I have participated in quite a few deletion discussions, though most of the last few thousand edits wouldn't include any of that, though I have participated in some this year. I do not have an undisclosed COI here, nor do I engage in UPE, the former would be foolish, the latter would be utterly detestable. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

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 Channel Zero (company). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XXX Action Clips Channel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Tagged for notability since 2019. Previously deleted in 2007 DonaldD23 talk to me 03:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete website is dead and seems to redirect to north.ca. I can't find any refs to the channel, just various adult clips that hit on the words in the phrase. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Channel Zero (company) - I found a couple of passing mentions, one of which focuses on my proposed merge target being probed (lol pun) by the CRTC for not adhering to license requirements on the channel, the other focuses on Rogers Communications showing a free preview of the subject. Global News The Globe and Mail - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication this is notable with little in the way of any coverage beyond trivial. Disagree with a merge, as none of the content is sourced and I don't think having this specifically mentioned on the parent company article would be particularly appropriate anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you oppose a blank-and-redirect? ― Ghost of Dan Gurney 00:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: I am indifferent to that, seeing as someone could just create a redirect anyway if an article is deleted. As to whether i'd care much if the history was retained in a redirect scenario - I wouldn't, if that were a clear consensus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already has two references from Mediacaster, a Canadian trade magazine for the cable and new media industries which is no longer published. https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3AMediacaster Once notable, always notable. The fact that the website is no longer active is not a valid argument for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: Those citations spectacularly fail to cover the subject necessary per WP:SIGCOV. They are literally a passing mention. I noted this in my own statement, that I couldn't find anything beyond trivial. If you can, please disclose this for consideration. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why someone like Eastmain who is very experienced at AfD would have said these references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Giving the benefit of the doubt here but perhaps we've missed something or we're looking at the wrong references - Eastmain, can you point to a specific paragraph which meets the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this network even active at this point? Looking at Bell's channel page there's no network by that name now available, and everything 404s (and Channel Zero doesn't even own any adult entertainment interests now). I'm going to just say Delete because it's woefully undersourced and its niche (short clips of scenes) is now filled by every adult site imaginable (AOV TV is still a thing but at $35 a month it probably has subscribers in the low hundreds). Nate • (chatter) 20:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't tell whether this is still active, but that doesn't matter to notability. Notability is not temporary, and the references support that it was notable when it was active. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But going by past consensus with other adult channels with low subscriber figures, outside 'big name' titled networks associated with a magazine, we tend to err towards redirection to one article rather than separate articles (re: The Erotic Network). That, and by design, this channel type is always going to have low sources because they tend to stay under the radar as much as possible because of their content, and that's only become worse as these networks not only decline into forced irrelvancy, but are no longer promoted either by the network themselves or their carriage partner. And especially as we don't even know this network's current ownership (CZ doesn't even mention it on their page). Nate • (chatter) 18:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Channel Zero (company) as per ATD. Unless Eastmain has spotted something in those other articles, I can't see any reason this topic is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have noted, the sourced used contain passing mentions only, not significant coverage. Zaathras (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Channel Zero (company). Not finding significant RS coverage to establish independent notability. It's worth a mention on the target page. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But again, does CZ even still have any interest in it? Their webpage doesn't mention any adult content ownership any longer, online or wireline. It's very likely it and its sister channels been folded into one of the 835 subsidiaries a company like MindGeek has (or is literally just a looping server with two weeks of content on autopilot somewhere in a Bell headend), so to redirect it would be supporting what is not true any longer. It's likely its ownership was spun off in CZ's 2016 bankruptcy to some paper company so that they wouldn't have to have issues trying to find new funding after wiping the slate clean. Nate • (chatter) 23:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Also going by pageviews, its only peak was an unusual one in 2020, and under 100 since then. This page is barely being accessed as an article right now, thus its purpose as a redirect would be nil with such a clumsy name. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I am not convinced by a redirect and I an definitely not supporting merging anything, not least because the integrity of the existing prose is questionable, but that it's very unclear if the supposed parent company have any interest in this (merging would only make sense to me if there is some credible source that links it to the parent currently and if the merged prose is appropriately referenced). It's all well and good wanting to find an WP:ATD wherever possible, but in this case I don't see how this is viable or appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a mention to parent article with proper sources per above. No need for a stand alone article with no/questionable notability sourcing. If a properly sourced merge target cannot be identified, Delete. // Timothy :: talk 02:54, 9 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the Wankhede Stadium[edit]

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

While the individual entries are of course notable, the list topic as a whole seems to lack notability (WP:LISTN) and is mainly covered by statistical databases only. It isn't an exceptionally rare occurence anyway (41 test centuries in 23 tests): the centuries will individually be covered in match reports and the like, but the group of these centuries by ground is apparently not really of interest. Many similar pages have already been deleted at AfD, the latest was here which also lists earlier similar AfDs. Fram (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Lists, and India. Fram (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and for the same reasons as per List of international cricket centuries at Kingsmead Cricket Ground and several others which have resulted in deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. This is effectively a query into a database of cricket results; no non-statistical sources. Several similar articles have been deleted there is no argument by consistency to keep this either. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, rather than continuing this piecemeal, perhaps the next nomination should be Old Trafford, followed by the remaining 30 as a bulk nomination? Walt Yoder (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've already established a precedent: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Dubai International Cricket Stadium. These were bulk nominations from a while back. Ajf773 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but no. I tried that with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at the BRSABV Ekana Cricket Stadium, which didn't go down too well. Fram (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTSTATS and more importantly WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, above and previous discussions. No encyclopedic value, just stats. Nigej (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2023 (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. At this point, there is a clear consensus that this is not an appropriate subject for a standalone article, and no one has suggested where the article might be merged. If consensus arises as to an appropriate merge target in the future, that can certainly be facilitated at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warfare theater of Rudniki Forest[edit]

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

The article name yields no results on Google Books and Google Scholar. It is a neologism and a clear case of original research with minimal content as well. Following WP:DEL-REASON, it's a case of number 6. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Germany, and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I'm skeptical a proper WP:BEFORE search was conducted, considering a perfunctory search using a more accurate term returned this online source by Yad Vashem, as well as this book and this journal article. The article needs a rename, as the current name is an editor creation not reflective of reliable sources, but it is a bit misleading to state that a search returned nothing if you searched using an incorrect term. In addition, there are clear potential merge targets that have not been considered as WP:ATDs, such as Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe and Jewish partisans. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 There are no articles on Wikipedia titled "Warfare theater of ..." That's clearly a neologism. The article's scope is unclear, while also being very much WP:OR, because there is no such thing as "Battle of Rudniki Forest", etc. in WP:RS. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah obviously that was a unilateral page move made by a single editor. Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a proper location as suggested above unless some serious sourcing can be added and the article written in something approaching proper format and style. If enough information is added, I can see changing to Keep if the action proves notable on its own. Intothat darkness 16:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weird title, there was of course warfare in Rudniki forest, it was one of the main partisan bases in the region, Soviet, Polish and Jewish partisans were stationing there for sure; and there was a Battle of Surkonty, but it already have an article. Since there is no much to merge really, I think we should delete Marcelus (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a consensus target(s). It seems this is a poorly source fork, that could be much better covered in related articles. There are several viable options for a target, no reason it can't be adapted to more than one. This title is not a good candidate for a redirect, but if there is a consensus for one, I have no objection. // Timothy :: talk 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some merge targets have been proposed, but there's no consensus for where the article should be merged to (if consensus results in a merge).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted, the title is citogenesis. Curbon7's references discuss actions in 1943, while the stub says "1944 and 1945" (which is probably in error, as it would have been anti-Soviet actions at that time). Just because there was partisan activity in this region doesn't mean it is suitable for a stand-alone article. Whatever actual information there is should be discussed in a differently-titled and scoped article - perhaps Resistance in Lithuania during World War II. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does anyone have access to that Litai source, to check what is actually written there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 10 April 2023 (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. The article has been substantially improved and though this is on the edge of what should be kept as a (once-)populated place, those supporting retention of the article are not clearly in the wrong. BD2412 T 01:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sundad, Arizona[edit]

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

Having a greaqt deal of trouble with this one, as sources tend to assume that ruins of buildings equal ghost town. There was a mine here, and it's not beyond possibility that the foundations seen are all of mine buildings. Many sources say there was a TB sanatorium here, but otehrs say that they only though about putting one here and that it was never built. Almost all of them say "not much is known about Sundad". The elaborate rock patterns, BTW, appear to be new. I couldn't find any documentation of the "Sundad" sign before 2006. Mangoe (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep due to lack of deletion rationale WP:SKCRIT, although even if there was a rationale, I'd argue to keep, because there was a mine here and some history, which I've added. I wish the links here worked, so we could get more info. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/53d82203e4b06f0f87b75b2c WP:GEOLAND has a really low bar and this passes it. CT55555(talk) 05:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One gets tired of the ritual language after doing several hundred of these, but as it appears it must be uttered: this fails WP:GEOLAND because it cannot be shown from reliable sources that it is a settlement. Mines must meet WP:GNG, and I can just barely determine that there was a mine here, much less that it meets any criterion for notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Known location

Justwatchmee (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whatever this place was, it hasn't received enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this indicates it was a known location, this which calls it a ghost town, indicating it was populated at one time, this which also indicates that it was populated at one time, this which indicates that folks were still living there in the late 1930s, this and this are verbatim entries in two publications, indicating this was a known location. Also, this, while a brief mention, is a mention in a list of other populated locations.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Just a heads up, I would recommend removing the Wikipedia portion of the URL to make it more accessible:
- https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/clip/77783901/ (Requires logging in)
- https://www.newspapers.com/clip/77783901/arizona-republic/ (Free to view by anyone)
Just in case a user without access to the Wikipedia Library wants to view your sources! Why? I Ask (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: WP:GEOLAND says that populated places without legal recognition are decided on a case-by-case basis per reliable sources. However, all the sources above simply establish that it existed. But after a lengthy search, I can not find anything more than trivial mentions anywhere. (I only stopped looking at Newspapers.com after the first hundred or so entries where it began to give me instances of "Sunday" and "Standard".) Why? I Ask (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places. We have no evidence that this place is or was legally recognised. If it isn't then it has to pass the WP:GNG, which it clearly doesn't. The Keep rationales above which argue the place should be kept because a source includes it in a list of populated places, describes it as a "known location", or says somebody lived there once are inconsistent with the core policies of WP:V and WP:NOR, and if this wasn't an article about a place they would not be taken at all seriously. Hut 8.5 19:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Onel5969's analysis above. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote doesn't really make much sense. Simply name dropping a town doesn't provide enough coverage per WP:GEOLAND, so voting speedy keep on such an edge case isn't helpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable former mining settlement with encyclopedic content. Plenty of hits in Google Books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my own review, I find that the article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND via WP:SIGCOV in independent secondary WP:RS. The coverage of the subject is beyond WP:ROUTINE and meets the significant threshold to sufficiently indicate WP:NOTABILITY via SIGCOV criteria. Furthermore, notability is demonstrated in satisfying WP:GEOLAND with sufficient notability through GNG. WP:NPLACE is also met by subject, since the degree of coverage by reliable independent secondary sources exceeds WP:ROUTINE. An article on a non-notable subject would be eligible for deletion under GNG requirements, however, this subject passes WP:GEOLAND to sufficiently demonstrate notability according to WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, I find that GNG and NPLACE are satisfied as well, as demonstrated by the in depth reliable secondary source coverage of the subject. I would be more inclined to suggest deletion if the subject didn’t have demonstrable notability via lack of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV or failing WP:GNG or GEOLAND. Since these criteria are met, though, I see a strong policy-based rationale for inclusion. Deletion could be considered if GEOLAND wasn’t met (which would also weaken the GNG case), but in this case the relevant notability guidelines are passed and the article should not be eligible for deletion. I will also point out that the article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND via WP:SIGCOV in independent secondary WP:RS. The coverage of the subject is beyond WP:ROUTINE and meets the significant threshold to sufficiently indicate WP:NOTABILITY via SIGCOV criteria. Furthermore, notability is demonstrated in satisfying WP:GEOLAND with sufficient notability through GNG. WP:NPLACE is also met by subject, since the degree of coverage by reliable independent secondary sources exceeds WP:ROUTINE. An article on a non-notable subject would be eligible for deletion under GNG requirements, however, this subject passes WP:GEOLAND to sufficiently demonstrate notability according to WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, I find that GNG and NPLACE are satisfied as well, as demonstrated by the in depth reliable secondary source coverage of the subject. I would be more inclined to suggest deletion if the subject didn’t have demonstrable notability via lack of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV or failing WP:GNG or GEOLAND. Since these criteria are met, though, I see a strong policy-based rationale for inclusion. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article being updated with new sources, a string of arguments to prove the article's retention.--Bexaendos (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2023 (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 Luhansk People's Republic. Star Mississippi 02:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of the Luhansk People's Republic[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This figment does not meet GNG for an article nor for a standalone list. —Michael Z. 04:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The JSTOR search rendered "No results". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Russia, and Ukraine. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As a list this does not need citations. The list has three names all of which are blue links. I would not oppose a merge if someone could suggest an appropriate target, related to the government of People's Republic of Luhansk. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Luhansk People's Republic. This is content fork, such info just should be mentioned on main page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per My very best wishes to Luhansk People's Republic. This is a clear content fork and can easily fit back into the disputed territory's page. Nomader (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Luhansk People's Republic per above. Unneeded poorly sourced CFORK that only exists to make readers chase links. // Timothy :: talk 03:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too detailed for the already long Luhansk People's Republic. No objection to merge this into Politics of the Luhansk People's Republic (now only a redirect), if and when such an article will be justified. gidonb (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Why do you call our article "too detailed" ? It's only one introductory sentence plus a list of three prime ministers. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This table is very detailed to stick in Luhansk People's Republic. It would be more appropriate for the next level that does not yet exist and until then kept. gidonb (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion on Head of the Donetsk People's Republic was closed as Merge some hours ago. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2023 (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 Donetsk People's Republic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Head of the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:GNG Rsk6400 (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Russia, and Ukraine. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Politics section of Donetsk People’s Republic. If its not already in the destination article, it would be good to transfer over the info about the progression of leaders in a merge, but if it’s already there, a simple redirect should suffice. HappyWith (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a standard article listing an office holder. These pages exist for all of the heads of Russian Federal Subjects and the Governors of Ukrainian Oblasts as well as for the head of the LPR, and for a variety of other countries, entities and disputed polities. Unlike the pages prime ministers of the LPR and DPR, this page is sourced and documents a notable position. I would say that this page needs some work but deletion is overkill. Khronicle I (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a standard post in a standard federal subject of Russia, and I don’t think we have a guideline supporting the concept of such “standard articles” anyway. It’s now a pretend federal subject as part of the Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory, and for eight years it was even less. Sources treat it as such, as should we. —Michael Z. 16:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Standard as in common for a first level administrative division in a federal state, disputed or not. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'pretend', the legality of the DPR is irrelevant to whether or not this page should exist, as similar pages exist for other disputed entities. The existance of this page is not an endorsement of the DPR or Russian annexation. It's disputed status could be reason to add a footnote similar to the ones on pages relating to Kosovo or Abkhazia. Khronicle I (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "first level administrative division in a federal state" and there are no sources that state it is any such thing outside of Russian propaganda. An internationally condemned criminal syndicate operating in illegally occupied territory comes much closer to what IS RS state.[22], [23], [24], [25] // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A JSTOR search for the term rendered No results. The article contains four sources dealing not with the office per se, but only with changes of the office holders. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Similar previous discussion which may be of interest to participants. Curbon7 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to Donetsk People's Republic would be a good WP:ATD, although there is also merit to the keep argument presented by Khronicle I. Curbon7 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think the arguments presented by Nomader are sound and rational. I would note that a merge here does not preclude re-creation of the article several years down the line, particularly if the DPR unfortunately remains a part of Russia at the conclusion of this war; best to wait until the dust settles in such a case. Curbon7 (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources don’t support notability of the subject as an article nor as a standalone list of appointed heads. —Michael Z. 16:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donetsk People's Republic. This is a content fork in its present state from the other article -- I found surprisingly few articles about the position itself and only about the people who held them. Because of the small amount of leaders here, a merge should be a solid alternative to deletion, and the article should be able to be re-created if more sources are found for the position of the Head of the DPR from reliable sources or the list grows too large for disputed territory's page. Nomader (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donetsk People's Republic per above. Unneeded poorly sourced CFORK that only exists to make readers chase links. // Timothy :: talk 03:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DPR per Nomader. Khronicle I (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge to Donetsk People's Republic seems to be a good solution. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2023 (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 05:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Singh Rawat[edit]

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

Subject seems to be the father of Suresh Singh Rawat and all references in the article are about his son. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Rajasthan. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as a hoax. The article says that he is "a member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly representing the pushkar Vidhan Sabha constituency of Rajasthan." but all sources says that his son has served as member and I have done a google search but can't verify the claims. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result University says that there is no person from Pushkar Assembly constituency who served as member with this name. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete something's wrong here. It may be a hoax, it may be a poorly-sourced article, it may be a confusing topic of two people with similar names. I'm not going to pull the trigger on the speedy (although I wouldn't stop anyone who does). But whatever IS going on here, it most certainly is a page that I believe should be removed from the encyclopedia; at best, to draft for cleanup; at worst, delete. But as the article stands now it is in no shape to be in mainspace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mix-up of the names of the Pushkar legislator and his father. No indication of the father passing WP:GNG. --Soman (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2023 (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 05:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ward (singer/songwriter)[edit]

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

Notability and style concerns. His album Almighty Row isn't notable either. Walt Yoder (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. Walt Yoder (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both (musician and album) - I can find no pro reviews of any of his albums, nor reliable coverage of his career in general. The article dates back to 2010, probably started as a promotional attempt by himself or a follower, and somehow remained undetected until now. The article states that he is popular among bloggers, for which I can find no evidence even if that counted for notability here (it doesn't), nor can I find any confirmation that his songs were featured in the various TV shows listed. He may have received minor payment for some snippets to be used as uncredited backing tracks, if that much. He's present on the usual self-upload services, but he does not qualify for an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Doomsdayer520. Obvious lack of notability, and I agree that it seems as if the article was created due to promotional reasons (which is in itself enough for considering deletion). Neither the artist nor the album warrant a standalone article in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:33, 10 April 2023 (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. ✗plicit 00:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Charles Brown[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The one source provided could be considered primary. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Honest Game Trailers episodes[edit]

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

This doesn't seem notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia page, maybe some of the info can be added to a different page. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources cited are an article about Honest Trailers which has only about one sentence about Honest Game Trailers and nothing about its episodes, and Fandom.com, which is a wiki and not a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total WP:FANCRUFT. The topic Honest Trailers isn't even notable itself, the section it redirects to is bombarded with Youtube links. Ajf773 (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Metropolitan90. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:UNDUE weight without WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Even Honest Trailers itself hasn't reached notability, and the section it links to is cluttered with unreliable primary research. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Honest Trailers isn't even notable, let alone do we need a spin out list. Also worth noting that there's little if value in the list anyways. Looks like someone just transcribed a YouTube Playlist or something. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: As said above, Honest Game Trailers doesn’t even have an article on Wikipedia. The only two sources in this article is a fandom article, which isn’t very reliable, and a single reliable source that can’t save the article. None of the list entries are actually verifiable since there are no sources for these individual entries. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HGT doesn't even have an article, so this is no more deserving of one. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability of Honest Game Trailers is unestablished, and thus a list of them would be too. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft per nom. Azuredivay (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Bruce (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have any WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSICIAN. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN. I couldn't find any sources, let alone reliable, via Newsbank database search of newspapers. Cabrils (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2023 (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 on account of insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Hulan[edit]

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

Ambasdadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. The 2 provided sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Austria, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has clear sourcing issues, with primary sources being used to establish notability in contravention to policy. However, my very own very cursory search turned up enough mentions in relation to her various fairly significant postings that I must object to deletion over revision. While no single source I found clearly establishes notability on its own, the combined picture was of an individual who is fairly notable in international relations. For example, a recent newspaper reporting on her statements regarding the Russia/Ukraine for lift suggests ongoing coverage https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/02/03/threat-is-real-of-russian-forces-invading-ukraine-mps-told.html, she gets quoted in random third party country media https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22100842/women-in-business.html, we can confirm she’s spoken before the UN general assembly (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/statement-by-ambassador-hulan-chair-of-fmct-expert-group-eng.pdf) she’s also on the IAEA board of governors (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-chair-of-iaea-board-of-governors-elected) etc. Far more failed sourcing effort is needed before I’ll support deletion. Deletion is not a substitute for fixing articles. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not indepth coverage and does not meet WP:SIGCOV for Hulan. This one is also not indepth coverage as per WP:SIGCOV. It merely quotes her in an article quoting many others. The fact she has spoken at the UN General Assembly or been on the IAEA board does not confer automatic notability. The IAEA source is a bit more indepth but it's a primary source. We need indepth third party sourcing. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I do agree with the above. We need to be talking about how notable the person actually is, not making decisions based on the state of the article. WP:DINC seems relevant here.

The Toronto Star article above helps establish notability.

A few sentences about her appear in Brysk, A. (2009). Global Good Samaritans: Human Rights as Foreign Policy. United States: Oxford University Press, USA.

She is interviewed in Ankersen, C. (2014). The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation: Canada in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

There are brief mentions in Behringer, R. M. (2012). The Human Security Agenda: How Middle Power Leadership Defied U.S. Hegemony. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. and in the Spectator link above seem to be enough to conclude that WP:BASIC is met. CT55555(talk) 02:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL, having a position such as Minister Counsellor and head of political section at Canada's UN Mission, as well as a notesworthy diplomatic career. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please define "notesworthy political career". LibStar (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomatic, not political: Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada to NATO and her country's ambassador to Austria, besides her position in the UN. During her career, she has held positions that make her stand out among other diplomats. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have notability guidelines for diplomats so her standing out among other diplomats doesn't help. She has to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I tried to express is that standing out gives her notability for an article, but it is not my main argument based on policy. Instead, it was WP:NPOL, having held the national position of Minister Counsellor; looking through sources, I can also see she has served in the foreign affairs ministry. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first, let's be clear, they do not meet WP:NPOL. Second, there is nowhere near enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. The only in-depth coverage is from primary sources. Libstar's analysis of the 4 additional sources above is spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NPOL or NBIO. Sources are either primary, her statements/writings or brief mentions and was unable to find any in-depth coverage about her. S0091 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
	From article
Primary, not IS RS for notability	1. "Canadian project in support of FMCT". United Nations Geneva. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
Primary, not IS RS for notability	2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Canada's Ambassador to Austria". Government of Canada. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
	from discussion
A single quote (16 words), not about article subject. Quotes are not IS RS showing notability	https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/02/03/threat-is-real-of-russian-forces-invading-ukraine-mps-told.html
One paragraph paraphrases a quote from the subject.	https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22100842/women-in-business.html
Primary, subject statement. not IS RS for notability	https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/statement-by-ambassador-hulan-chair-of-fmct-expert-group-eng.pdf
primary bio, not IS RS	https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-chair-of-iaea-board-of-governors-elected
As OP states, a few sentences, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	Brysk, A. (2009). Global Good Samaritans: Human Rights as Foreign Policy
As OP states, An interview. Primary, not IS RS for notability	Ankersen, C. (2014). The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation
As OP states, only brief mentions, not SIGCOV addressing thee subject directly and indepth.	Behringer, R. M. (2012). The Human Security Agenda: How Middle Power Leadership Defied U.S. Hegemony

The BEFOREs and table above showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While there are policy driven rationales for keeping the article, there are also policy driven rationales for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing to keep, the deletion arguments also have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer that this is a pretty obvious chatbot-written comment and other users have independently raised this issue on their user talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found additional sources about Hulan:
"'Threat is real' of Russian forces invading Ukraine, MPs told". Toronto Star. 3 February 2022.

"Women in business". The Slovak Spectator. 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2023-04-04.

"Canadian university becomes IAEA Collaborating Centre". World Nuclear News. 29 April 2021.

"Announcement of new diplomatic appointments". Global Affairs Canada. 23 December 2021.

"The Director General for Political Affairs and Security, Ambassador Pasquale Ferrara, is on an official visit to Canada". Ambasciata d'Italia Ottawa. 28 July 2022.

"Heidi Hulan". International Gender Champions.

It's not as much as I'd like, but they should show that the subject has independent coverage. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus most of these of her statements or are trivial coverage (a sentence or two), neither which satisfy WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, these additional sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV:

Toronto star article, not the subject of source and a brief mention of Hulan merely commenting as a representative of the government.
Slovak spectator and World nuclear news, a small mention but not the subject of the source, fails WP:SIGCOV.
Global affairs Canada is a primary source.
Italian embassy merely says Hulan attended a meeting, not WP:SIGCOV.

LibStar (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the source assessment above that the sources identified so far are all either non-independent or nonsignificant. JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2023 (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 Metropolitan Routes in Cape Town. Here a sock, there a sock. Everywhere a sock sock. That said, no consensus against a redirect in lieu of deletion and potential creation by an established editor. Star Mississippi 02:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M58 (Cape Town)[edit]

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

Zero in-depth coverage of this road. Was redirected, but reverted without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: I assume that you have done WP:BEFORE? --Rs chen 7754 15:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Piggybacking on Rschen7754's question, can you explain your process of WP:BEFORE when you evaluated this article? V C 16:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the course of doing research on several of such articles (i.e. M1 (Durban), M27 (Durban)) I have generally found that there are too many sources to simply redirect to a table. If there are concerns that such articles should be merged into a list (not just a table, but a more extended list with paragraphs for each route) that can be discussed outside AFD. --Rs chen 7754 07:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[26] looks to have some hits, but without buying the book it is hard to say. --Rs chen 7754 05:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would be okay with a soft redirect since the creator was a sock, and the issue of notability could be revisited at a later date. --Rs chen 7754 00:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Numbered routes in South Africa (fails WP:GNG~~ MetricMaster (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Comment wrong proposed redirect target. Park3r (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will also point out that this is a very new editor, with most of their edits being today's string of AFD votes. --Rs chen 7754 00:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Rschen7754's comment. GeographicAccountant (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metropolitan Routes in Cape Town or consensus target. Unnecessary fork that only makes readers chase links to access content. There is not reason to fragment this content. Just because an article might be notable, doesn't mean it must have an article. // Timothy :: talk 22:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just admitted that the road is notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Timothy. The sources presented in the article and at this AfD are trivial passing mentions that shows it exists and nothing more. I couldn't find anything else obvious in a search. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without prejudice against a well-developed article, per Timothy's reasoning. While the topic is notable, the current content does not offer sufficient added value for a keep. gidonb (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTCLEANUP If a topic is notable, then the current state of the article is not relevant. Park3r (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP does not apply to premature spinoffs. It applies only to articles that need cleanup in some way or form. Someone else made a similar comment under Timothy's opinion. Totally irrelevant! gidonb (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2023 (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 Metropolitan Routes in Cape Town. Consensus is to restore redirect back to original target, as article was expanded by a sockpuppet which would otherwise fall under WP:G5. No objections to restoring redirect. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M13 (Cape Town)[edit]

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

Zero in-depth coverage, was redirected, but the redirect was reverted without improvement. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: I assume that you have done WP:BEFORE? --Rs chen 7754 15:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the course of doing research on several of such articles I have found that there are too many sources to simply redirect to a table. Already I have found (hit #2 or 3 on "books") [27]. If there are concerns that such articles should be merged into a list (not just a table, but a more extended list with paragraphs for each route) that can be discussed outside AFD. --Rs chen 7754 22:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Numbered routes in South Africa (fails WP:GNG MetricMaster (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

that wouldn’t be the correct redirect target. Metropolitan Routes in Cape Town is more specific IF this was closed as a redirect. Park3r (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will also point out that this is a very new editor, with most of their edits being today's string of AFD votes. --Rs chen 7754 00:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment from confirmed sock QuicoleJR (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Rschen7754's comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeographicAccountant (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metropolitan Routes in Cape Town or consensus target. Unnecessary fork that only makes readers chase links to access content. There is not reason to fragment this content. Just because an article might be notable, doesn't mean it must have an article. // Timothy :: talk 21:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above as a de-facto WP:G5 as article was expanded from a redirect by a confirmed sockpuppet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would be okay with a (soft) redirect since the creator was a sock, and the issue of notability could be revisited at a later date. --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emre Gökay[edit]

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

A 17 year old footballer who fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. I was unable to find any significant coverage during a search and both of the sources in the article[28][29] are match reports that mention him once. Alvaldi (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify promising young player that just made his debut, there's some coverage online but most of it probably to come.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my ideal recommendation would a redirect to 2022–23 Sivasspor season, with a draft restored if he is still playing next season. But that may be too complicated. Draftify may be the more feasible option. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Upcoming player, however, the article currently fails WP:GNG. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While no editor suggested keeping the article as is, discounting the blocked sockpuppet there does not seem to be any consensus on what to do with the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and not draftify. We need to wait quite some time for him to become notable enough. If it were to be draftified, it would probably get deleted after six months anyways. Aintabli (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafitfy - Per Ortizesp. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keeps above provide no sources. Oppose Draft, no reason to increase the uproar about Drafts just being a back door to deletion and in any case there is no excuse to keep poorly sourced BLPs. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 07:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Vendera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:SIGCOV. Only significant claim to notability is appearing on an episode of MythBusters. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. AllyD (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced without any sources to be found. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is not convincing enough without any references.Roci xu (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is Promo. I find this source [30], I'm not sure if it's the same person or not. Leaning !delete unless we have some sort of other sourcing sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has been on a few TV shows to demonstrate his abilities and is now promoting himself as a vocal coach. Unfortunately he has generated no reliable media coverage with which to build an encyclopedic article. This one has survived undetected for a ridiculously long time, but it's still a rather shameless promotional attempt by himself or a follower. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 4 April 2023 (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. ✗plicit 00:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Golden Crown Harmonizers[edit]

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

All I can find is a single newspaper article in the Austin Chronicle, which is great. But that alone borders on local coverage, and one good source doesn't prove it meets WP:GNG. (There are also some results when looking at Google Books, but they are single-sentence mentions.) Why? I Ask (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 3 April 2023 (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 withdrawn by nominator; see below. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx^Talk? 19:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afshar Beylik[edit]

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

Only one source and that is non-WP:RS dead link. I'm having a hard time finding a good source for this. There are instances of "Sevindik Han", but there the state is not called the "Afshar Beylik". Best if this page is deleted or redirects to the Afshar people for now. Aintabli (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. It seems some if any editors who have viewed this AfD are undecided on this and will be for some time. I might try to find some more sources about "Sevindik Han" and perhaps rename the article after him, since he seems to be the only ruler. Aintabli (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2023 (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 00:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Mohammad Abu Tayyab[edit]

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

Academic who doesn't meet WP:NPROF. While this isn't a reason for deletion, this article has been a magnet for sockpuppets who've created a lot of articles on local professors. Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject is clearly not notable. Wikipedia is not Hello magazine. Mccapra (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN Prof. Please also WP:SALT. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And actually make this speedy as WP:CSD#G5. Original author is a WP:SOCK. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible for G5. The sock collection was uncovered and blocked after the article was created; G5 is only available for articles created by someone evading a past block. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above; does not meet NPROF. Eagleash (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete it and it is good for Wikipedia. He is a teacher in so big college. What the point to delete the article. People come to Wikipedia for articles. If you delete every new article what the point then to contribute in the Wikipedia. So my opinion is not to delete the article. Mirza Mohammad Abu Tayyab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemistya7 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Patna.f --Blablubbs (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (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.

[note6-1] Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

[1]