Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 07 April 09 >

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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. If someone wants to work on this, I'm happy to draftify Star Mississippi 12:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Indian Women's League season[edit]

2022–23 Indian Women's League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another ridiculous contested redirect, with zero in-depth coverage from independent sources. So now we're here. Onel5969 TT me 16:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it ridiculous when the source is from the website of the governing body itself?! Ghdfghmp (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires reliable sources independent of the subject which the governing body wouldn't be Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it hard to believe that the current season of the top women's league of the second-most populous country on Earth has no significant coverage. A quick search indicates a variety of sources: InsideSport, Sportstar, The Times of India, News18, Sportskeeda, The Sentinel, The Statesman. While the article needs sources to be improved, it should not be deleted. And there will be a lot more coverage once the season begins later this month. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Delete The sources available at this time are just regurgitating the announcement of the new season, and there is not yet any independent analysis to meet WP:GNG. There may be better articles in the future., so follow WP:SHOWSPOTENTIAL and hope for the best. BruceThomson (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and NSEASON. All the references in the article and above ROUTINE sports annoucements about groupings and the start of the season.
No sources in article or above are IS RS SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Oppose Draft as a backdoor to deletion.  // Timothy :: talk  13:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per SA Julio. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to source analysis above. While I would love to see women's sport receive a greater share of the coverage, unfortunately it is not supported by the sources at this time. Hopefully it is just a WP:TOOSOON situation, which won't be the case in future. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sensitive to the poor quality of the sources as they stand, but I want to point out that the season is scheduled to begin in less than 10 days, at which point common sense says that the body of sources will change considerably, and recreation (if this is deleted) is almost certain. So what encyclopedic purpose do we serve by deleting it in the interim, or by spending a considerable period arguing over it? Just food for thought; not going to engage in depth here. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point of the WP:TOOSOON concept is that it's too much of a burden for us to guess whether an article will have significant coverage in the future. We don't want to have to come back in a couple of months and say "Still no significant coverage, should we wait a bit more?" Instead we deal with what we can see right now. Of course, there are also the WP:SNG guidelines that allow us to bypass the requirement of significant coverage in some cases, but this article doesn't meet any of those. BruceThomson (talk) 05:56, 16 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. Courcelles (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tapur Chatterjee[edit]

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

This is a non-notable model. None of the references highlights her modelling achievements. Sourcing is scrappy to say the least, passing mentions, puff pieces (too many about her efforts to 'clean rivers', which is not a claim for notability advanced in the article) and references which do not get us past WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Khorang 20:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known (former) model and grandchild of popular actor. Tapur Chatterjee appears regularly in Indian newspapers and news sites. Jaireeodell (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, After doing a Google News search, I found plenty of sources. She is a popular model in India and majority of news are from Indian publications. The publications mostly look reliable such as India Express and Hindustan Times. I updated with few new citations. Royal88888 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete BLP. Sources in the article and BEFORE show all promo, interviews, etc. As stated above [1] and [2] are the best and they are clearly promo and interview. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO.  // Timothy :: talk  05:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's all fluff coverage. A Hindustan Times article about your choice's for a child's nursery is not what we're looking for. I can't find anything extra. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 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. I am discounting the opinions by Kailash29792 and DeluxeVegan because they violate WP:NPA in that they accuse those who support deletion of "systemic bias" and "ignorance" or "being clueless". If you continue to make such contributions to deletion discussions, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Looking at the remaining "keep" opinions, they mostly fail to address the arguments given in the deletion nomination and by TimothyBlue: at most, they allege that the film is covered in sources, but they do not indicate which specific source establishes the notability of the topic and why. In part, the "keep" opinions are mere speculations about the popularity of the film, which is irrelevant for our purposes. Consequently, the "keep" opinions are unconvincing and must be given less weight when assessing consensus. The article can be undeleted or recreated once the film gets sufficient coverage in reliable sources, presumably if and when it is being released. Sandstein 08:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger 3[edit]

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

Was AfD'd last year, and still no indication this film meets WP:NFILM, let alone WP:GNG. Additionally, there is an existing draft, which should have been worked on and submitted. Would have restored the redirect, but recent discussions at ANI no longer leave that option, since the redirect was contested. Onel5969 TT me 11:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the article have enough sources and its production is also noticable, so please do not consider it for deletion purposes. User:MNWiki845 (talk) 2:00, 4 April 2023 (IST)

  • Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM. Sources in the article and BEFORE show only promo, interviews, database style entries, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  04:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the reasoning of Timothy. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets the criteria described at WP:NFF, despite the current agenda drive to misinterpret it. It's impossible for an unreleased film to have in-depth analysis about it in the press. So unless there is a rule that explicitly prohibits all unreleased films that are currently filming/in post-prod to have not articles, this agenda needs to stop. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFF, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
And nothing gets a pass on WP:V and WP:N.  // Timothy :: talk  18:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And production becomes notable when filming begins and there is sufficient media coverage on it (which is clearly the case here), and not when there is "in-depth analysis" of unreleased films (which obviously will never happen). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, just like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal (2023 film) this is going to be relisted multiple times, and despite getting more "keep" votes, it will be deleted. Why even bother with this charade of asking for people's opinion when they won't be respected? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This AfD is a clear example of systemic bias, and the nominator is clueless about Indian cinema. Pathaan too was dismissed as unnotable by Westerners, but see what happened. And this is set in the same universe. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as per Box Office India.

Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 08:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There are 9 references in the filming section, variably sourced to The Indian Express, The Times of India, Bollywood Hungama, Mid-Day etc., all reliable news outlets. The coverage is not in-passing or trivial and takes note of the film's production schedule across various cities and countries. Films in production are generally secretive about their principal photography to avoid public mishaps or story leaks to the media. You cannot expect in-depth coverage of filming any more than what is already present for any film. Notability should be measured by the same yardstick for Tiger 3 and your average Captain America: New World Order and the like, not be influenced by editors' systemic biases and ignorance. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:02, 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. Courcelles (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abuja Chamber of Commerce and Industry[edit]

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

Organisation not notable, due to sources not meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. 180.150.37.213 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor; above text is copied from article talk page and from completion request at WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 22:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 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. Courcelles (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tinpo Lee[edit]

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

A working actor, his most significant role was on General Hospital, but I'm not sure how significant that role was. Other than that, no other roles which are significant, so fails WP:NACTOR. Also, not enough in-depth coverage of him to show that he meets WP:GNG. The mentions he gets all have to do with his more famous daughter, Peyton, and notability is not inherited. Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Techoliver298 is the creator and major contributor to the disputed text. -The Gnome (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bit parts or one off appearances, nothing we can use for GNG. Father of an actress isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 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! 22:42, 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 WTF with Marc Maron. Consensus is to delete or redirect. The delete rationales argued against the suitability of a standalone article but did not discount or argue against redirecting the article. Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of WTF with Marc Maron episodes[edit]

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

Redirected by Pppery. Then contested. Not enough sourcing to meet WP:VERIFY. And currently fails notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 11:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As redirector, my rationale was that the only reason given for unredirecting was a clearly-false claim of vandalism. The reason for the second unredirection was WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is only slightly better, so restore redirect due to the lack of any policy-based argument for unredirection provided in any of the three attempts. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Generally, I think podcast episode lists are excessive and unhelpful violations of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, especially for shows that do not have an overarching storyline or plot. I'm hesitant about this particular list because there are sources that discuss the episodes as a group. For instance, Thrillist, Slate, Vulture, ScreenRant, and Den of Geek. And while the most recent RfC that I opened did indicate that an episode list needs to pass WP:NLIST there was also discussion that suggested episode lists should generally only be used for shows with storylines or plots. I've been looking into starting another RfC and in the process I've looked for similar discussions related to TV episode lists, and the couple of responses I got at the TV wikiproject expressed similar views that podcasts without storylines or plots should not have episode lists. I'm also not sure if the sources I've cited here warrant a list with over 1,300 entries. These sources I've cited only discuss about 30 unique episodes (the lists overlap quite a bit). Do a few sources that discuss 30 episodes warrant a list of over 1,300 entries? Is that a violation of WP:UNDUE or a similar guideline? Would it be more appropriate to expand the WTF_with_Marc_Maron#Notable_podcasts section with these sources? I'm on the fence with this one, but I lean toward redirect. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exhaustive episode list covered by a single primary source. Podcast episodes are generally not notable on their own, unlike various television shows, and certainly the subject of each episode gets no mention (if at all) appearing on the episode. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails LISTN and WP:CLN (AOAL). No sources show this being discussed as a group.  // Timothy :: talk  00:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WTF with Marc Maron or the section WTF_with_Marc_Maron#Notable_podcasts per my comment above. I wanted to formerly !vote rather than just comment. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep - We have two ways lists of episodes, characters, etc. come about: notability via NLIST and article splits. There was a recent RfC about podcasts, but it does not supersede long-standing style guidelines about what to do when part of an article gets too long. So the question is: does this meet NLIST, or would it be WP:DUE in the main article, but too long to include there? WTF is in the top tiny percentage of notable podcasts, such that it is unsurprising there are plenty of sources which treat lists of episodes as a group (as a reminder, such sources don't have to cover the whole group), but I think the article size argument is more persuasive. If there were 30 episodes, I don't think we'd hesitate to just include them in the article. With this many, however, they would take too much space there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks independent sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:00, 16 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crexendo[edit]

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

This "article" is hopeless, weak, references, no intro, and seems to be a rough draft in hopes it being kept. Ebbedlila (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although deletion is not cleanup, the references provided are all self-published sources (i.e. press releases and the company's website). A quick BEFORE check shows that this is the same for any promising reference I could find. Article reads like an advert and makes no showing of notability per GNG or NCORP. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draft I think this is just poorly sourced as it is a NASDAQ listed company and I can see plenty other sources. Rather than delete, maybe just draft it so someone can improve it. Check these other sources that I have found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and few more. Kakara69 (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Analysis of sources: Number 1 is still just a press release by Crexendo. Number 4 is a self proclaimed "financial blog" (see about us page). Others seem to be ok. Still not sure that this would be enough for GNG or NCORP. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Fails GNG and CORP. Nnothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Source eval:
BEFORE showed more promo and primary, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  01:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very rough state and lack of reliable sources. Not ready to be an article. Persent101 (talk) 04:16, 12 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of footballers with 300 or more Premier League appearances for one club[edit]

List of footballers with 300 or more Premier League appearances for one club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

topic fails WP:GNG due to severe lack of in depth coverage in independent and reliable sources All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Passes CLN and AOAL. Should only contain sourced and notable items.  // Timothy :: talk  22:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • What are the sources for a list of footballers with 300 or more PL games? How does this pass "advantages of a list" exactly, TimothyBlue? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - why 300? Seems arbitrary. GiantSnowman 08:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above what, Das osmnezz? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is already a page that refers to the number of appearances in the premier league (List of footballers with 500 or more Premier League appearances). and why 300? Patagonia41 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patagonia41 - don't know if it changes your view, but note that this article is a list of footballers with 300 or more Premier League appearances for one club, not 300 in total (the other list is for players who have played 500 in total, some of whom played for as many as five different clubs)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have a notable article for 500+ appearances, no reason why we'd need another article for a 300+ appearances. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joseph2302 - don't know if it changes your view, but note that this article is a list of footballers with 300 or more Premier League appearances for one club, not 300 in total -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's still sufficient overlap that we don't need both lists. And this one doesn't show why it passes WP:NLIST, or why 300 is a notable number. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dup fork per above therefore fails CLN and AOAL. No sources show it passing NLIST.  // Timothy :: talk  16:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. List of footballers with 500 or more Premier League appearances perhaps ought to be renamed since it contains a list of "Most appearances by club", nearly all of which are less than 500. Content here could perhaps be added there. Nigej (talk) 09:51, 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 Dentsply Sirona. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirona Dental Systems[edit]

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

although this was listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange, the references seem very weak. The prose seem to be a factsheet, not really encyclopedic. Ebbedlila (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dentsply Sirona Company isn't dead and this should go somewhere as an ATD (though the rd target needs serious help itself). Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dentsply Sirona per above. No need for this nn CFORK. I don't see any properly sourced content that would improve the target, but if there is a consensus, no objection to merging sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  22:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge to Dentsply Sirona since it was renamed to that company. Some of the info from here could be reused, so Merge is probably better. Kakara69 (talk) 08:34, 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 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. Salvio giuliano 21:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeland Industries[edit]

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

although this is listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange, the references are very weak. The prose seem to be a factsheet, not really encyclopedic. Ebbedlila (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Fails GNG and CORP. Nnothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Source eval:
  • Stock price database record :: 1.  "Lakeland Industries, Inc. stock price". Marketwatch.com. Retrieved March 9, 2014.
  • Funding website company database record :: 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Lakeland Industries, Inc. History". FundingUniverse. Archived from the original on July 22, 2020. Retrieved July 18, 2022.
  • Stock price database record :: 3. ^ "Lakeland Industries, Inc.: NASDAQ:LAKE quotes & news - Google". Retrieved March 9, 2014.
  • SEC form 10-K, failed V, 404 :: 4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K Lakeland Industries Inc". Retrieved 2022-07-14.
  • Stock price database record :: 5. ^ "LAKE stock quote - Lakeland Industries, Inc. stock price - NASDAQ". Nasdaq.com. Retrieved March 9, 2014.
  • Stock price database record :: 6. ^ "LAKE: Summary for Lakeland Industries, Inc.- Yahoo! Finance". Finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved March 9, 2014.
BEFORE showed more promo and primary, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 12 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. Aoidh (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thangalaan[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient production coverage to meet WP:NFF instead of regular WP:NFILM criteria. As written, this is referenced entirely to the film's IMDb page and a YouTube copy of its trailer, which are not support for notability at all -- the notability test for films hinges on third-party coverage about the film in media, such as reviews by professional film critics, news coverage about the production, and on and so forth. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when it does get released, but a film's own self-created web presence isn't the kind of sourcing we need to make it notable enough for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Films are not automatically notable the moment principal photography has commenced — WP:NFF is a secondary path for extremely high profile films that generate such a deluge of production coverage that even if they failed they'd still be permanently notable as failed productions anyway, not the primary notability criterion for all films. Basically, very few films short of the Marvel or Star Wars franchises are ever supposed to get "as soon as principal photography has commenced" notability under NFF — the vast majority of films have to meet "has been released and reviewed by professional film critics" notability under regular plain old NFILM criteria. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Fails GNG and NFILM. Nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article are IMDB asnd promo. Sources above are all promo. Per NFILM, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable". There is nothing to indicate notability for the production. WP is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and there is no indication this will ever meet guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  01:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without prejudice to restoration if the film actually gains coverage in reliable sources at some point in the future. BD2412 T 02:15, 16 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 18:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danda Russo[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for actors or filmmakers. As always, every person in the film industry is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because there are film credits listed in it -- the notability test depends on the reception of real, reliable third party media coverage about her and her performances to satisfy WP:GNG, not just on listing roles per se. But there isn't any GNG-worthy coverage about her being cited here at all -- the only reference in the entire article is the self-published website of the university she attended, and even that is just serving to verify that the screenwriting program exists while not even glancingly mentioning Danda Russo at all, and the writing tone is dancing perilously close to being speediable as a G11 (though stopping just marginally short of being blatant enough to activate my deletion trigger finger.)
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim than just existing and legitimate GNG-worthy reliable sourcing to support a properly and neutrally written article, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to keep an article that's written and sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 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 merge to Satellite tornado. Star Mississippi 18:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tornadoes with confirmed satellite tornadoes[edit]

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

This tornado likely fails notability guidelines, with concerns raised from a few editors on the talk page a year ago. It will hopelessly be an incomplete hodgepodge of guesses and maybes. Now it even has a “potential” section. The whole thing just doesn’t seem rooted in verifiable, relevant information and seems superfluous and unnecessary in regards to the article satellite tornado and Wikipedia in general. United States Man (talk) 19:14, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 18:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadou Diawara (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is only one source in the article, an interview with trivial prose. I was unable to find anything better during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14], among many many more French, Arabic, Greek, and Portuguese sources. Clearly topic of interest with ongoing career with extensive pro career including in the elite level Portuguese Primeira Liga. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Regarding most of the consistent pro-deletion users, I dont understand why they spend all their effort deleting other peoples honest hard work instead of improving them, especially most pro-deletion users I have encountered who have a double standard where they either support Wikipedia:SNG where the article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG or have sometimes created articles of people with less coverage than this one. (I support article creation, but many pro-deletion users double standard is very frustrating) Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Das osmnezz, you can of course express at any time your opinions about "pro-deletion" editors but here they prove to be counter productive, since they distract from the AfD process. Better to bring such observations or grievances to an appropriate forum, such as ANI or the AfD talk page. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:13, 13 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 18:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Massri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the sources in the article, [15] is a player profile on his team site, [16] is a match report on an opposing team site, [17] is an interview on Youtube, [18] is a Facebook post, [19] is mostly just quotes from an interview, [20] is a match report of a U-23 team with a trivial mention. I was unable to find any better sources during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 18:33, 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. Star Mississippi 18:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-played video games by player count[edit]

List of most-played video games by player count (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the List of fastest-selling products, this list makes apples-to-oranges comparisons between fundamentally different and incompatible measures. Downloads =/= registered accounts =/= daily/monthly active users =/= owners on Steam =/= retail sales. Some of these are time based and change from month to month (do you pick the highest ever point?). Some of these are trivial (it takes no effort to download and never launch a game and some companies have been known to puff their download numbers with bot accounts). Every company has a slightly different definition for a valid "player count", which is optimized to make them look good. Unlike "highest-selling" games which is tracked by independent auditors, I don't know that a true and validly sourced "list of most-played games" is possible, given the state of reporting on this topic in the games industry.

There is also the separate issue that this article was heavily edited by Maestro2016 (aka Jagged 85), who is notorious for misrepresenting and often outright falsifying sources. Any conclusion to this AFD should recommend an action with respect to this, whether that's draftifying until his contributions are verified/stripped out, or WP:TNT, or another solution. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable list of questionable encyclopedic value. I don't think TNT is right, nor any other ATD: this is simply not a list Wikipedia should be trying to have and maintain. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic - accounts are often faked and so sheer numbers of accounts means little, nor does it indicate real-life impact. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pretty much per nom. This is a list of statistics sorted by their face value even though they are measuring different things, and are largely self-published with promotional intent and probably impossible to source independently. It's like a list of tall buildings where some are measured in feet and others in metres, and some are measured from ground level while others include basements, and some are given as elevation above sea level instead, although at least in those cases we could probably convert between them, but then the list is also ranked so that a 1750-ft building is "taller" than one measured at 875m. Also the heights aren't measured, we just take the builders' word for it. It just doesn't work as an encyclopedic list. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow that's a great analogy. Wish I had thought to put it that way! Axem Titanium (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a "list of video games with concurrent users", or something that was really citable, but right now we've got an article with lists of amounts from ten years ago, and some from yesterday. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Downloads, registered accounts and Steam users are three different things. Most downloaded games maybe could be one list, but there's really no way to filter out bot downloads, or multiple downloads by the same user (plays game, deletes game, download again, plays again). The most "keepable" stats are probably the ones for Steam users, which could just be a few lines in that article. This is a synthesis of different things, mushed together into a mess. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Timur9008 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim to only F2P games, as player count is the standard method of valuating the size of an F2P game. This is a standard used in most sources, and the problem of editors adding in non-F2P games is the problem, not the metric. --Masem (t) 22:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. No indication that this can be turned into something with encyclopedic value. Nigej (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. This is unreliable and impossible to compare accurately. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:06, 13 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 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Acevedo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the sources in the article, [21] is a player profile on his team site, [22] is a Youtube video by a Youtuber who takes video requests, [23] another Youtube video, this time by his team, [24] mentions him once in a list of U-23 players, [25] is series of qoutes from the player with no prose. I was unable to find any significant sources during a search. The article has already been draftified but was moved back to mainspace one day later without any significant improvements. Alvaldi (talk) 17:24, 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. Star Mississippi 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Chamorro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the sources in the article, [26] is a Facebook post, and [27] and [28] are trivial reports of him being added to the active roster, both from 22 January 2023. I was unable to find any better sources during a search. The article has already been drafted but was moved back to mainspace the day after without any new sources being added. Alvaldi (talk) 17:14, 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 Keep The result was keep WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Young-nam[edit]

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

Notability not established. The only sourced used in the article is actually more about a different person. The article is only 3 sentences long. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:27, 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. Courcelles (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalbit Petroleum[edit]

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain The company is mentioned in yahoo finance, forbes, Mwebantu, africa.com, and standardmedia. It definitely meets WP:NCORP, and it is a very significant player in the African energy sector. Epifanove🗯️ 10:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, fails GNG and CORP. BEFORE showed nothing and sources in the article are ROUTINE business news and primary, nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addaddressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  01:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is about a relatively small fuel operator, yet the text boldly claims the company is "one of the largest fuel distributors in East Africa", citing a Yahoo! report on the Kenyan petroleum industry for 2021 with nary a mention of "one of the largest fuel distributors in East Africa." The only item of some interest is the Forbes write up about the law's interest in the activities of Mr Kariuki, owner of "many companies", among which is this one. There's truly nothing there. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 13 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Lamanauskas[edit]

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

Not notable person. Re-created by a related party after the article was deleted via PROD. Renata•3 01:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This person is the Deputy Secretary-General of one of the most important United Nations Specialized Agencies. Bquast (talk)
Just to note that the previous Deputy Secretary-General was Malcolm Johnson (administrator), the is an article on his. As on the DSG before Houlin Zhao. Bquast (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vice secretário general" seria la traducción del título en español. Simaocampos (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Complementando: su página oficial en inglés - https://www.itu.int/en/osg/dsg/Pages/default.aspx y español, https://www.itu.int/es/osg/dsg/Pages/default.aspx
Electo por la Asemblea Plenipotenciaria de la UIT enoctobre 2022, ref https://pp22.itu.int/en/elections/elections-results/ Simaocampos (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeming notable and having sources that discuss him are two different things. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Under-secretary of the ITU might be notable, but there are no sources that discuss this individual. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The ITU Deputy Secretary General is an ex-officio Under-Secretary General of the UN System Bquast (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a source from the World Economic Forum that gives a profile as well as one by the OECD Bquast (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem like a notable - official? I also peeked at Johnson and Zhao, they are longer but also rather poorly referenced. They may require Articles for Deletion treatment also. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Zhao after Deputy Secretary General became Secretary General of ITU. I think that meet notability by most reasonable standards. Bquast (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability for Wikipedia is not established by claiming that certain title is "important" but by showing significant coverage in third-party sources. Please read WP:Notability. Renata•3 00:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems to me like there is more or less consensus about the notability of this person. I saw a some major third-party sources being cited. I added another one (full interview with the person that is the subject of this article) Geezerberkhout (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specific citations in support of our arguments are needed, Geezerberkhout. And interviews have a hard time making it on their own. As to the consensus you are seeing, there isn't here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The plethora of sources is enough for the subject to merit inclusion. And there's extra coverage about the importance of specifically this individual's appointment at the ITU directorate. (See the Politico article, among others.) -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete The argument that there were no sufficient sources, may have had some validity (as opposed to the argument of not being notable), but as of now I see references to full length articles on the subject of this article from Yale, WEF, OECD, Nokia, and a range of others, so there is no longer a dearth of notable sources (that are on the subject). Aditisrinivasan (talk) 02:12, 14 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Kaunda Chinoya[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated in the last few weeks. Taking to AfD to hopefully establish some sort of consensus. Sources exist about him but I'm concerned that they aren't WP:RS. For example, I found Simdif but it looks like it might be user-generated (I'm not familiar with it). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The claim of notability, seemingly, is that he "supports humanity". Well, who doesn't? This BLP is unreferenced, which violates policy. Much of the prose is gibberish. Simdif is a website building platform and the opposite of a reliable source. A Google search shows commonplace social media profiles and nothing else. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 and salt. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and above, A7 and salt.  // Timothy :: talk  01:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this brochure of pure promotion, created by a kamikaze account and concerning a subject unpolluted by notability. Why oh why, we ask ourselves, but we all suspect why. -The Gnome (talk) 16:49, 13 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 14:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcenter Norway[edit]

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

Another contested redirect, without improvements, with zero in-depth coverage from reliable independent, reliable secondary sources. Searches turned up mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 13:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Norway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep w/ a serving of fish - Easily passes GNG with coverage in Norwegian sources which have been added to the article by Sauer202. Specifically, I am satisfied by ABC Nyheter and Norsk Porsche providing in-depth coverage, though others have been added which I will not bother combing through at the moment, since I have already demonstrated a GNG pass. The ease and speed at which these were added to the article leads me to believe that Norwegian sources were not even bothered to be checked by the nominator, which I am concerned is similar behaviour to which the nominator finds themselves currently at ANI for. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The two sources linked to by GhostOfDanGurney are strong indicators of notability and there are many more in the article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denuwan Sri Bandara[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, COI/UPE creation, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could not find a single source which tells that he coached a professional domestic or international cricket team. Poorly sourced article, no significant coverage regarding his acting profession as well. Fails WP:GNG. RoboCric (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG. Non-notable actor or anything in relation to cricket. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually in Sri Lanka he is somewhat popular. His role as Pinto in Deweni Inima is well known. Also as per his IMDb, he is known for his role as the soldier in the movie "Children of the Sun".
    --
    For cricket, I found his profile on batsman.com. It's not updated by them. Gamini Rg (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a Level 1 certified cricket coach, and I'm totally non-notable! From a cricketing perspective, it's a delete. StickyWicket (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on that part. Cricket coach part must be removed from the article. Gamini Rg (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The text was created by a kamikaze account with decent skills in photoportraits but substance unfit for a decent debate.-The Gnome (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will delete this article myself. I just wanted to start writing articles for Wikipedia. Wrote this as I have some contacts with Denuwan. I am not paid to write this. Naveenchinthana (talk) 16:41, 14 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Feutchine[edit]

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

WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. Was draftified, and then returned to mainspace without any in-depth coverage of this player. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after improvements by Folly Mox. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 09:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Yong'an[edit]

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

I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show this meets WP:GNG, but that could be because of the language barrier. Current sourcing does not have enough information to show whether or not they pass WP:VERIFY, was draftified in hopes of improvement, but was returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 13:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969: thanks for your work. We rooted out most of the trivial and fictitious stuff from the Three Kingdoms space feels like over a decade ago now. There is one very productive editor in the space – don't remember who – who uses this idiosyncratic citation style, but for a subject matter expert these are trivially verifiable online. Of course like everything else in the period it's been studied to pieces by later scholars but the early sources are already secondary and way easier to access. I don't have access to a physical copy of the Book of Jin anymore, but I've got a printed version of 三國志注 right here so I can get those citations into a state where they conform to house style more closely. I'll bold a keep or speedy keep here in a few hours once I tackle that. Folly Mox (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you do, and I'll withdraw the nomination. Onel5969 TT me 17:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: I've improved the citation style of the article. I'm not able to get to the granularity of page numbers for the Book of Jin citations, but most people will be verifying in html anyway, where they're not preserved. Please let me know if there's anything else required. Thanks again. Folly Mox (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, they're probably busy. Keep I guess before I forget about this. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Not in reference to the article under discussion, but upon closer inspection it turns out a bunch of cruft and trivia has snuck back into some of our Three Kingdoms articles somehow over the past decade. 奈何 Folly Mox (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't get your ping. Thanks for the efforts. Onel5969 TT me 09:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article already seems to demonstrate significant coverage in two sources and at least a bit of coverage in another source. The citation style looks unusual in a general English-language encyclopedia but is not too hard to understand if you're familiar with ancient Chinese history. There's coverage in modern sources too – here are a few that I found with a quick search: [32][33][34][35]. @Folly Mox: Thanks for working on cleaning up the citations. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:33, 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vilde Bakke-Andersen[edit]

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

Same situation as WP:AFD/Hannah Handeland and WP:AFD/Nora Heggheim. The subject is a practitioner of amateur sports that does not meet WP:SIGCOV, in that little coverage exists, and this little coverage isn't significant either. The article was attempted "salvaged" by adding references to winning a children's cup and other participation in children's sports, which was frankly not worth the effort, other than underpinning the guideline failure. Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 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 keep. Courcelles (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nara Tehsil[edit]

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

Another contested redirect. Zero sourcing to show this place exists (only ref does not mention this place). Onel5969 TT me 12:47, 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Bridge Federation[edit]

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

Another contested prod with zero in-depth coverage. Searches did not turn up any either. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:41, 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caveginia Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school, keeps being recreated by COI/UPE editor. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A notable primary school, with coverage on several major Nigerian newspapers. Caveginiaschool (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has been indefinitely banned for advertising. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage falls short of WP:ORGDEPTH. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Significant coverage of this school is lacking, and all I see are passing mentions. Primary schools are rarely notable unless they are clearly of architectural or historical importance. Cullen328 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Primary schools are rarely notable and this one does not get close. --Bduke (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable primary school, with coverage on several big media houses in Nigeria, also won a Delta State sports competition in the primary category. Gimmebiro (talk) 04:11, 15 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 2026 FIFA World Cup. Courcelles (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2026 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC first round[edit]

2026 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC first round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect. A case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now, not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tré Mitford[edit]

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

Another contested redirect without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:59, 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Ahmad (footballer)[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Was created back in the day before WP:NOLYMPICS was changed. Onel5969 TT me 11:47, 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 Takara. Courcelles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walkie bits[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for well over a decade. Zero in-depth coverage either currently, or found in searches. Was boldly, and correctly, imho, redirected to Takara, where it is mentioned, by 162 etc.. But that redirect was contested, without comment or improvement. So we we are here. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:49, 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 keep. Found sufficient coverage that passes WP:GNG. No point in wasting anybodies time. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 10:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ja'Mal Green[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. UPE. No indication of being notable. No real WP:SECONDARY coverage. scope_creepTalk 10:46, 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaziosmanpaşa Anatolian High School[edit]

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

Has been around for years without any in-depth coverage. Searches did not turn up enough coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:43, 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Morgan Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are business news, press releases, PR and routine coverage. scope_creepTalk 10:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some improvements in the article, which includes the deletion of perceived PR coverage. I think it now qualifies for publication on Wikipedia Portablenenka (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your a WP:SPA and and a WP:UPE. scope_creepTalk 08:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock. I knew it right enough. scope_creepTalk 10:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per G5, it was created by a WP:SOCK who was already blocked. Wesoree (Talk) 13:42, 12 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A2A Simulations[edit]

A2A Simulations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. What refs are there is routine coverage. scope_creepTalk 10:27, 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. Salvio giuliano 10:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of water shortages[edit]

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

1 member "list". Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

water shortages redirects to Water scarcity, and list examples there. This article was created with a single entry in 2011‎ and not expanded, nor is likely to ever be. A list article with only one entry is worthless. Dream Focus 22:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if expanded it would seem nothing more than trivia. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:39, 13 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 delete (G5 Jimlantabanao). UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DXMK-TV[edit]

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

Television station doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:35, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constellation HomeBuilder Systems[edit]

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

Promotional article, company seems to lack independent coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:36, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Slim[edit]

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

References are non-English so this was tough. I went through them with Google Translate and the only source I see as reliable is BBC. With that said, I found nothing reliable in English and also asked for assistance] at WikiProject Azerbaijan but the only response(s) was from this] SPA (named Dragqueen Lady Slim coincidentally) and this new account with only three edits. CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 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 keep. Consensus is to Keep but with advice to delistify or restructure this article so some editorial work needs to be done. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of manifestos of mass killers[edit]

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

This feels like an absolutely inappropriate article that has no encyclopedic value whatsoever and only seems to promote mass killers' manifestos. Any information on these manifestos is best left to the main articles themselves. Love of Corey (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's definitely a grim topic, but criminal psychology often is. Furthermore, it isn't so much promoting the manifestos, but aims to be a dry laconic of their contents. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before creating list, we need to have main article of the list first. Where it is? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delistify. Really, I think the topic of "mass killer manifesto" is likely notable on its own...the NPR piece (in external links) and the linguistic analysis in the references already are just a start on that front. Probably the best solution here is to actually write an article in that direction (it doesn't have to be super long, and I don't think I have the ability/expertise to do it), and the current list could easily fit in at the end of that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and potentially restructure into proper article about mass killer manifestos, per 35.139.154.158. Koopinator (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, valid information list. This is a notable aspect of these mass killings. That's why the news media covers them. Dream Focus 22:35, 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 List of Mortal Kombat characters#Nightwolf. Consensus is this can be covered within the list. Star Mississippi 17:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwolf[edit]

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

Not sure how the 2nd nom works, but I'm open for criticism on this nom. After the last afd nom was kept as "no consensus," the merge arguments, like those from Czar, Beemer69 and Zxcvbnm, seem to be more accurate, and the article looks almost the same since the nom. There were no improvements at all. An IGN source was the only good thing here, but TheGamer source is weak. Which the article still fails Significant coverage. The Eurogamer [38] which discussing him as a dlc is kinda meh. Most of the sources provided were trivial or user submissions. Since the article was kept as "no consensus," I would reinstate it again and want a clear consensus. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 05:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 05:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 05:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Reception has not been improved since last year, probably because there is almost nothing in the vein of significant coverage. The part about him being a stereotype can be shortened to one sentence as most of the sources are low-effort hot takes, not well-reasoned discussion. Most of the article's plot summary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just like last time. Even if with discounting TheGamer, that still leaves the other sources brought up last time, such as the ones brought up by Haleth and myself. MoonJet (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe it meets GNG and SIGCOV.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Passing mention after passing mention does not SIGCOV make. The quick immediate example is the very first sentence of reception, Nightwolf is often unfavorably discussed in the context of the portrayal of Native Americans in video games.. This is sourced to The Escapist, and quotes an interviewee as Dillon says Nightwolf from Mortal Kombat 3 was the lone native character she remembers from childhood.. No actual commentary specific to Nightwolf was even given. Much of the rest of the sources follow a similar trend of mentioning the stereotypes and not diving further. Most of them are large top 20 or even longer lists ("Ranked 51 on the top 73 MK characters!"). There's a huge sentence dedicated to Connor of AC3 that ultimately says nothing about Nightwolf other than in passing as "unlike Nightwolf." Much of this is picked out of reception for the games and movies, and is not independent of those. -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters#Nightwolf. The aforementioned "other sources" have already been reviewed. The character is covered as an ensemble cast member among the series roster with no significance external to the series, and thus should be covered in that context. The prolific gaming press's breathless coverage of standard DLC itself does not confer independent notability for either the DLC or the character. The same way, a series character's appearance in related series media does not warrant a dedicated article to house that coverage. There was no reason to split this from the parent character list (whether a dedicated character list or within the series article's character section), as there isn't a preponderance of coverage that sets this character apart from every other Mortal Kombat series character. It can all—including the ethnic stereotyping sources—be covered evenly in its existing article before warranting a split for undue weight. Masters theses, thegamer.com, and so on: Not acceptable sources for an encyclopedia. czar 05:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the MK character list, as was my vote the first time around (sakes, has it really been eight months already?). I recently added the new reception but stereotyping aside — and even that, I discovered, isn't terribly in-depth despite being notable sources — Nightwolf hasn't really done much of anything as a whole despite his long tenure in the series, with his only Big Moment being in 2011 when he offed himself along with Sindel. Long story short, the well is unfortunately all but pumped dry. (As an off-topic aside about VG sources, since TheGamer has been brought up, I'm not sure why DualShockers is regularly used as a source when it's also not certified notable.) sixtynine • whaddya want? • 22:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Once again, another non-notable MK character. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My position on this topic has not changed since the last AfD which was cited by the OP in their nomination rationale. Haleth (talk) 23:08, 14 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tafadzwa Musakwa[edit]

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

Only umpired in domestic matches and two WODI matches per database sources. Doesn't pass the inclusion criteria for umpires, didn't receive any significant coverage either.RoboCric (talk) 04:54, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleidoscope Superior[edit]

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

No evidence this album is notable. Bedivere (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The three ratings in the article are plenty evidence of notability already, and I found a few more sources ([39][40][41][42][43]) which shore that up nicely. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:18, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autonational Rescue[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. HAs been an orphan since 2016 and has been written like an ad since 2011. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Newspaper mentions of the brand/service in public surveys and motoring tips carried out under its name. The surveys are about various motoring issues e.g. hospital parking charges. The organisation has some mentions in comparisons with similar services but found little of note. Insufficient indepth coverage to pass GNG/NCORP unless more is found. Rupples (talk) 19:24, 3 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 04:22, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Boyle (financier)[edit]

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

Not notable, self promotion Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails notability checks on a number of different levels:
    Fails WP:NPROF: As a Professor of Finance at King's College, decided to start here. I actually found no academic work (maybe I'm searching in the wrong places if someone could check here?) that had any citations at all. I'd argue that a "King's Education Award" from his own employer is not a significant enough award to meet Criterion 2. None of the criteria remotely apply here.
    Fails WP:NBASIC: The article has a Bloomberg article that's behind a paywall that I haven't been able to get around, but it seems like he's the main feature of the story ([44]). Otherwise, this Opalesque article might be reliable? But it's kind of on the edge and appears to be short anyways ([45]). Both of these are already in the article -- I found nothing else, and I searched Newsbank (through my library), EBSCO, JSTOR, Newspapers.com, and Newspaperarchive.com. Honestly went so far because I figured after seeing the Bloomberg piece that there had to be *something* so I've been very surprised. Nomader (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Visiting professorships are frequently given to people with success in the real world and no research experience. The lack of academic work is not unusual, especially not for a field like finance. On his website, Patrick Boyle claims to be a visiting professor, which is different from a professor, also known as a full professor.
    I was able to access that Bloomberg link with Archive.today. The Wayback Machine has been going to crap for years now. https://archive.is/bgRHm Attila412 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding the full Bloomberg article -- it counts towards SIGCOV even though it's mostly about his work and not him, in my opinion, but I think it by itself isn't nearly enough here. Nomader (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Internet, Ireland, and Massachusetts. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NPROF. Spleodrach (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Newspaper reporter from the 1970s and links to Joshua Boyle are all I can find for this name. No sourcing discussing a financier. Oaktree b (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Ireland, England, and United States of America. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough in terms of WP:SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NPROF, Fails WP:NBASIC, not enough in terms of WP:SIGCOV. What's the next step in order to wrap this up then, Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi Ho Kora (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Next step: wait a few more days for the normal amount of time for one of these discussions to elapse. Someone will be around to close it then. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The infobox lists two books but I suspect they may be aimed at amateur investors rather than academic economists; in any case, I searched but failed to find any published reviews of them, so we don't have a case of WP:AUTHOR, nor WP:PROF. That leaves WP:GNG for his work as an investor, but the discussion above has adequately dismissed that. In any case here I am inclined to apply stricter standards more like WP:ORG for the same reason that the WP:ORG standards are stricter (the often-spammy nature of sources in this area), pushing him even farther from the bar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having a SIGCOV article in Bloomberg.com about you is a big deal. I also see other sources using him (although very briefly) as a subject-matter expert, which could push him over meeting NPROF C7: Audioholics [1][note 1] and CoinDesk [2][note 2].
  1. ^ "Check out hedge fund manager and professor of finance, Patrick Boyle's video summary of exactly what went wrong at SVB. Prof Boyle concludes the SVB "bailout" is not the same as measures taken in the '08 financial crisis."
  2. ^ "The simplest explanation for the U-shape is demand for out-of-the-money (OTM) and in-the-money (ITM) call and put options is typically higher than for at-the-money (ATM) call and put options, as Patrick Boyle and Jesse McDougall wrote in the book 'Trading and Pricing Financial Derivatives.'"

BhamBoi (talk) 00:26, 15 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxus International[edit]

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

Non notable article. Ebbedlila (talk) 00:39, 25 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! 01:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first few pages of Google News results are just pr newswire and copied press releases. But, later on I found [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], from which a case for keep could be made. (t · c) buidhe 07:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 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. Star Mississippi 17:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perma-Pipe[edit]

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

Non notable with weak references. More like advertisement Ebbedlila (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails notability, only sources are Yahoo Finance about its stock and one self-drafted press release. Patr2016 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. A company of this size, traded on Nasdaq, is likely to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:28, 28 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! 01:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources are entirely news blurbs and press releases. There's nothing in the article that illustrates why the company is notable. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 08:12, 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Santa Fe Ballet[edit]

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

Ballet group that fails WP:GNG TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: WP:BEFORE shows several independent sources. Article is poorly sourced however, but that can be fixed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_April_8&oldid=1150130413"