Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 30	September 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Tremont[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned six caps for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. No GNG-passing sources to be found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman
Redirect - Fails GNG; redirect to the above mentioned article would be the best option, IMO. Ekdalian (talk) 06:54, 5 September 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!} 23:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education[edit]

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

NSCHOOL is essentially irrelevant now, so schools are required to meet GNG. Delete for lack of notability and being an ad page. Per this talk post it was created for promo purpose. Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and India. Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there are non-English references that are in-depth, there is nothing I found that shows how this would meet notability guidelines. It exists, but the references are mainly directory listings. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:NCORP. Per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ramakrishna_Mission_Brahmananda_College_of_Education, this article was written by a person affiliated with the school for purposes of advertisement/ religious propaganda. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG failure and everything above. NotAGenious (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not much available on the internet apart from listings Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP—TheWikiholic (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and has COI issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seawolf35 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 6 September 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!} 23:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique Houtkamp[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. This impression emerged after I removed all references that didn't meet WP:RS and/or violated WP:BLP/WP:BLPSPS. What remains is: 1) an interview (still BLPSPS content but an unrelated publisher); 2) a work whose depth in coverage of the subject I'm unable to verify; 3) scant mention; and 4) slightly less-scant mention, but in a dissertation/thesis paper, not what a BLP usually hangs its hat on. There are not multiple independent sources giving significant coverage of her on which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Visual arts, and Netherlands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Qwrk (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for referring this article to WP:BLPN in the first place. I created this AfD discussion in agreement with your comment there, and as a courtesy. If you'd like to contribute to a decision on whether to Keep or Delete this article, I hope you'll consider leaving an additional comment with your recommendation in bold text. I find your position clear. But this is the forum where stating it matters. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article in the Guardian is primary, the magazine from down under is not independent. Our text is also primary. gidonb (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The way this article was set up - before your great edits - it had the tone and choice of words that clearly showed this is a self-promotional write-up with many beefed-up exaggerations. "Her personal life was just as interesting and diverse." [hahaha!] Clearly a piece to show off, "here, look at me, I'm on wikipedia!" Qwrk (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:HOLE? JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good one and new to me. Thank you! Qwrk (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not speak for itself in explaining why she is notable, and a review of the sources does not support general notability.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Web archive of desktopmag.com.au/features/angelique-houtkamp/	Flyer announcing a show of her art, and an interview	No	Yes	?	No
2	Juxtapoz Tattoo 2.Juxtapoz Tattoo 2.	A book listing tattoos by multiple artists	Yes	Apparently yes.	Probably	Yes
3	The Guardian	Interviews with various female tattoo artists including Houtkamp	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	No, interviews
4	The Tyranny of the Spectacle: Tattooed Bodies in Contemporary Visual Culture	An unpublished Ph.D. thesis	Yes	Yes	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analysis. Thank you especially for providing a characterization for the second source, which I could not access. JFHJr (㊟) 17:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG, as per the above analysis by Robert McClenon. Ekdalian (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 6 September 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!} 23:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yosmeli Cabarroca[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no GNG-passing sources to be found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus.AI[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP, no substantive content from independent reliable sources about the company itself. Sources are all basically press releases/announcements about funding or surface-level commentary about machine learning/AI. Scientific citations all come from people from the organization itself. Citing (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify. The sources in the article are reliable, but the article has an overly promotional tone. Salsakesh (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to be written from the sources. As noted below, it's only routine coverage of funding rounds. Every single non-primary source is some variety of "[Company] has raised $X million." Citing (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When you ignore the primary source citations to published papers (which don't count toward establishing notability) there are only a handful of tech industry sources that mainly focus on the funding rounds raised. This is pretty routine coverage and isn't really significant enough to establish notability compared to the thousands of startups that get created and die or get acquired every year. Steven Walling • talk 01:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Steven's source analysis. My own research only turned up this ZDNet article as significant coverage, but it isn't enough to meet WP:GNG on its own. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 1 September 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!} 22:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AIPCC Energy (Edo Refinery)[edit]

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

Not notable: the company, while involved in significant industrial activities, doen't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (there are not enough independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the company in significant detail). LusikSnusik (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, lack of notable sources. Salsakesh (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Edo refineries (there are two). I don't find that AIPCC is notable, but the refineries are. There's a fair amount of information about it, (some of which doesn't mention AIPCC) and the refineries are a big issue in Edo state.[1] Larataguera (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 6 September 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 Time projection chamber. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Matter Time Projection Chamber[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have quite some academic papers talking about this experiment/device. See [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I think those are some sigcov from reliable sources, and I am inclined to keep. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with keeping the page, as there seem to be references available, they just haven't been added in. Madeleinehales (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) :)[reply]

merge with dark matter. The experiment is real but just one of many and readers would be better served by seeing the content in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs)

Hello Anon, that is also a valid point. In that sense, I think it will be better to merge with Time projection chamber as an example of these kinds of facilities. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Time projection chamber is a better choice, with a sentence in dark matter linking.

Johnjbarton (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess sources brought up in this discussion and also the possibility of a Merge (although 2 different Merge targets are suggested).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mates, it seems that there is enough coverage by scholarly articles. [9]. So, Keep. Cinadon36 19:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same relisting rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would support a merge. Time projection chamber seems better, with a mention at dark matter. UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 1 September 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!} 22:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Foote Wood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a politician and writer, and added some references, but I don't think there is substantial coverage or that he meets WP:NPOLITICIAN. His elected roles have been as a district councillor, a county councillor, member of a regional assembly and on the European Committee of the Regions. Coverage is at the mention level and I don't think it meets WP:GNG. His biography of his sister, Victoria Wood, received coverage but this looks like WP:BLP1E without lasting significant coverage. Article has been tagged with Notability since 2021. There was a previous deletion discussion in 2012, with several !votes of "weak keep" and an outcome of no consensus. Tacyarg (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't held any role that would be "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, but has not been shown as the subject of nearly enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having done quite a bit of work on this page recently, it would be a shame personally to see it deleted, given the number of citations added to a previously largely unreferenced section. That said, the citations don't necessarily confer notability, although we do have some pages for perennially unsuccessful candidates for office. So I'm on the fence with this one. OGBC1992 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - marginal case but he seems to be something of a local celebrity, there are quite a lot of results when searching for the subject. - Indefensible (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidate and notability seems inherited from his sibling after source review. SportingFlyer T·C 14:40, 2 September 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article despite it's sketchy origins as the creation of an LTA. That fact was barely touched on in this discussion which focused more on sources and notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of the Spirit Ministries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I deleted this article per G5, because it was almost entirely written by two socks of David Eribe, a prolific LTA with no regard for our content or sourcing policies, who regularly creates batches of socks to spam Wikipedia with bad articles about Nigerian religious people and groups. An editor reached out to be on my talk page to point out that it had survived an AfD discussion, which I had overlooked when I originally deleted it. That original discussion was tainted by contributions from two more of Eribe's socks, so I think the best thing to do is bring it here and thrash it out again.

Based on the original discussion, it does look like the subject might be notable; I haven't examined the sources mentioned in the discussion, but if they do offer substantial coverage of the subject then it is clear that an article could be written about it. The article as it stands, however, is primarily based on primary and affiliated sources; it has issues with the prose as well, and generally needs a going over by a competent editor to bring it into line with our standards. I think the best thing to do would be delete this article per a mix of WP:G5 and WP:TNT, and allow another editor in good standing to write a new article from scratch using proper sourcing. The second choice would be to strip out all the unreliable sourcing and reduce it to a stub that is supported by whatever reliable sourcing was mentioned in the AfD and can be accessed.

Pinging non-blocked contributors to the original AfD, and the closing admin as a courtesy: Oaktree b, SomethingForDeletion, Central and Adams, Suriname0, Pharaoh of the Wizards and Liz. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm still not seeing notability, beyond confirmation they exist as a religious group. Sourcing seems to be confirmation of existence only. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Draftify Since there are currently two reputable sources in the article (being Tribune Online and The Guardian Nigeria), I might be able to find other sources in books, newspapers, etc. But, at the very least it would end up being a stub. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While those sources are reliable, neither looks to provide WP:SIGCOV to me: they're both passing mentions. The book source is a little better (a few sentences about the activities of the org), but we would need additional in-depth sources to meet WP:GNG. Please let us know if you can find other WP:SIGCOV! Suriname0 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is clearly a notable church. There are tons of sources on GScholar. I added three that had PDFs linked to so far, and will add more soon. Central and Adams (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to go through the article and remove any content that cannot be supported by the quality sources that you find? Girth Summit _(blether) 08:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell which edits I'm willing to make by looking at the edits I make. If you see something you don't like about the article edit it yourself. Central and Adams (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the article! Do you mind identifying 1-2 sources beyond the Brouwer book that you think consitute WP:SIGCOV that you think I should look at? When I looked at Google Scholar hits during the previous AFD, most seemed like passing or incidental mentions. Suriname0 (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete - I looked through the sources again, and they continue to all look like passing mentions to me. I think Francis Wale Oke looks a little closer to notability. Please ping me if sources are identified with more than 1 or 2 sentences of coverage. Suriname0 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote updated to delete; no sources with WP:SIGCOV were identified in this discussion. Suriname0 (talk) 16:48, 1 September 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, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that this denomination is mentioned in books by R. Hackett, R. Marshall and S. Brouwer, which are authoritative on Nigerian Pentecostalism, make very clear for me that this topic meets notability criteria. I have also noticed a few paragraphs on this denomination in a book by T. Falola (probably the most prominent Nigerian academic on Nigeria history at the moment) that I'm going to try to get access to and add as a reference. --DonCamillo (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, none of those mentions are WP:SIGCOV, right? The mention in the Falola book you added is literally a passing mention in a footnote. Suriname0 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This isn't exactly a WP:HEY in terms of improvement but this subject appears to both exist and be sizable enough to be considered notable given what has been added. With some consideration for systemic bias, smaller Nigerian religious groups should not be expected to enjoy the same SIGCOV indexing that many minor denoms in the US have. Creation by an LTA does raise questions but the issues resultant from their disruption seem resolved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the sources currently in the article meet GNG. // Timothy :: talk 15:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue which sources specifically do you think contain WP:SIGCOV, or are you perhaps arguing that the topic meets WP:GNG without one or more sources containing WP:SIGCOV? Thanks for clarifying! Suriname0 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 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. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WarpOS[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. A mess of low quality references. Fails WP:GNG - UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the Further reading section clearly show notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavlor Which of all those sources are RS with extensive coverage of the topic? Cinadon36 20:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For this purpose, I would choose:
Drummond, Richard (July 1999). "WarpUp 4.0". Amiga Format. No. 125. Future Publishing. p. 51. ISSN 0957-4867. (full page review)

Krenželok, Petr (January 1998). "WarpUp your PowerUp?". Amiga Review (in Czech). No. 33. Atlantida Publishing. pp. 7–11. ISSN 1211-1465. (about the PowerUP vs WarpUP controversy)

Not in the article: Amiga Furture, May/June 2015, issue 114, Classic Reflections Part 21 Haage & Partner (history of the company behind WarpUP/WarpOS)

Other sources in the article cover mostly the WarpUP vs PowerUP controversy (Dream, AmigaNews), however, AmigaNews extensively cites press-releases by Haage and Partner or phase5 and I have only excerpts of the Dream article.

There may be far more sources of this kind in the various local Amiga magazines (I didn't find Italian or German magazines online), because PowerPC/PowerUP/WarpUP was the Big Thing in the world of Amiga back in the late 1990s. Pavlor (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources in WarpOS#Further reading and the 3rd criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion. // Timothy :: talk 15:13, 7 September 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!} 22:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alen Harbas[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - could only find significant coverage from primary sources, which does not pass GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Maybe if he gets a top tier professional career he would be notable but not now. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 7 September 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!} 22:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Rubio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR for having only made significant contributions in one (not multiple) notable films. That film would be Five Nights at Freddy's. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and California. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly WP:TOOSOON and probably does not meet WP:BLP. - Indefensible (talk) 06:20, 7 September 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!} 22:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Bogaerts[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Photography, and Belgium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for People. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite being a translation, this article is basically a professional profile and WP:NOTLINKEDIN. The article itself doesn't establish notability. BEFORE shows a couple passing references in books and web, but nothing that establishes notability of the subject. —siro χ o 22:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I too am leaning towards d*elete, but will hold off on !voting after I see what might be out there for sourcing. I think it is a COI or UPE creation for two reasons, 1) the promotional quality of it per Siroxo's observation and 2) because the professional, posed profile photo of the person was uploaded by the article creator as their "own work" so it is clear that there is a connection between the artist and the article creator, or perhaps it is an autobiography. While that is not necessarily a reason for deletion, it could mean that claims (esp. unsourced) are puffed up. Netherzone (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, it did not take long to find that there are not reliable sources that we would normally find for an artist, such as reviews of exhibitions in art magazines or newspapers, chapters in art history books or journal articles, works in the permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, and the like. What I did find a lot of is social media where it seems this artist is active in promoting themselves, as well as a few primary sources and user-submitted content. He does not pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG for notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. I am not finding any RS on the subject. I took a look at the images of work included in the article and have nominated them for deletion over at the commons. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 3 September 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manifold (prediction market)[edit]

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

Non-notable. There are no references that show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The New York Times reference is to a podcast where the site is mentioned, it is not an article. The Vox article does not mention Manifold, just provides a link to it. Jorge.a.alfaro (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jorge.a.alfaro (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Manifold has 95000 backlinks from 1400 domains. It is rapidly growing. Here is some data on search traffic and search engine positioning: https://github.com/JeroenDeDauw/JeroenDeDauw/assets/146040/c0c9d097-82e2-4e84-87f1-0f87deed185f. All data from Ahrefs.

It received millions in funding from multiple sources. It is well known in EA circles.

I think Manifold is notable. Not a great experience contributing to Wikipedia if this kind of content gets deleted because a podcast is not an article. Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen, articles have to meet our notability requirements using reliable sources. These requirements are spelled out in WP:CORP and WP:GNG for notability and WP:RS and WP:V for reliable sources. We have these rules to help ensure article reliability - a never-ending struggle here. This means our coverage of new companies is always going to lag Google hits and the blogosphere; that’s a tradeoff we accept.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your explanation and the reasoning, even though I don't like the result of policy in this case. Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - At this point, I don't think that Manifold is currently notable, but given the recent number of references in reliable sources, I expect it will be in the near future and this article can be expanded upon in Draft space in the meantime. There are a number of trivial references in reliable independent secondary sources (Vox, NYT, Financial Times), but I'm not aware of any significant ones. The New York Times podcast mention is certainly trivial, even though it is reliable. The only significant coverage comes from the Hanania podcast, but it's unclear whether that is independent (Hanania is financially involved with the site) or reliable.

For disclosure, I'm a user of Manifold. Manifold has some prediction markets on whether this article will exist (and not be deleted) - [10] and [11] - but I don't have any stake in those markets and don't see myself as having a COI. However, I suspect that some other editors here will, which they should disclose.

Gbear605 (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Manifold users betting on this article’s retention, take a look at those requirements I cited to Jeroen above and then compare them with the article - that’s the best way to predict the outcome of this discussion.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those not playing the Manifold markets, the 2 prediction markets for this article haven't moved a lot over the period from before the article's creation to the current deletion discussion: a 25-ish% chance of an article that "sticks" (no deletion) by 30 September,^[12] a 60-ish% chance by 31 December.^[13]

I interpret this to mean the market participants are looking at media coverage and our reliable sources requirements for themselves, rather than following every pro or con comment here. Good approach, guys.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Gbear605‘s reasoning. Good idea.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Behavioural science, Social science, and Finance. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full disclosure: I use Manifold and found out about this AfD via the markets about this article's existence, but I have not staked mana on either outcome. As a Manifold user, I love the site and hope it gets more popular to the point where it incontestably merits an article. As a Wikipedia editor... it's clearly not at that point yet. Reliable sources have only mentioned it in passing – we need more substantive coverage to pass NCORP.

I don't think draftifying is the right step either, that's more for articles that should eventually end up in mainspace but aren't at a good standard yet, whereas it's still an open question whether Manifold will ever be notable enough for an article. – Teratix ₵ 07:11, 1 September 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 Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy N. Leal[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG as a county level judge and failed federal judicial nominee. I suppose this could be redirected to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Let'srun (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and California. Let'srun (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies per recent precedent. - Indefensible (talk) 06:21, 7 September 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 List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Arcia[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least seven caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman

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 X Marks the Pedwalk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Pure Intellect[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2009 with no attempts at improvement. The album is by a non-notable band and doesn't have WP:SIGCOV from what I can find. It does not seem to meet any of the WP:NALBUMS criteria either. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X Marks the Pedwalk, which notes it in discography, as WP:ATD —siro χ o 02:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Lithopsian (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gyurkovicsarna[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced. An IMDb link and the Swedish equivalent (see WP:NFSOURCES). Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Secondary and tertiary sources may exist, but nobody has seen fit to add them. Lithopsian (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sweden. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current reference doesn't prove the film is notable. It is a database generated profile similar to IMDB, so makes it is a WP:SPS source and is non-rs. It has effectively been copied from one profile into another profile on here with nothing to satisfy WP:V. Searching Google Books on the subject names finds loads of passing mentions. There is no doubt that it exists but currently it is unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 20:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. Note the film is at least occasionally referred to as The Gyurkovics Family
1. SIGCOV in this book [14]
2. SIGCOV in this book [15]
3. Brief coverage in this book [16]
4. The Swedish language article references (Svenska Dagbladet, 20 september 1920, sid. 11)
5. Mentions in these books [17][18]

—siro χ o 20:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment don,t turn it in to a redirect to an article that is not the same subject (there was a redirect loop created in the article of John W Brunius). Keep the original or delete it so there is a red link and in future someone can make it into a noteworthy blue article.Geerestein3 (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: there are claims that the Svensk Filmdatabas is similar to IMDb, but as far as i can see, is that the Svensk databas is from the Swedish filminstitut and is not open for the public to amend or adjust in comparison to IMDb, so there is already a big difference. In the Swedish database there is also a interesting caption 'Kommentarer'Geerestein3 (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources presented above by Siroxo attest notability. The film was apparently a commercial success. Note: 1) the page is not unsourced, it's insufficiently sourced (and that is not a reason for deletion, nor is the fact that no one bothered to add sources that indeed exist) 2) and of course the Svensk filmdatabas is much more reliable than IMDb, and this, specially on a Swedish film....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page 62-64 of the ref 2 above "Masculinity in the Golden Age of Swedish" is detailed enough for a WP:SECONDARY ref. I couldn't see Ref 1 but assuming it the same as Ref 1 in quality, there should be enough. The others one are poor existance to non-existant. Posting passing mentions is useless to everybody. scope_creep^Talk 06:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources unearthed above are okay - there's enough for an article here. Also, as noted above, the Swedish Film Database entry has a section "Kommentarer" [19] that contains contemporary press coverage, which is a very welcome for old movies. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not that much coverage, but Masculinity in the Golden Age of Swedish Cinema offers enough. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in light of comments above about the Swedish Film Database, I have posted the following at the reliable sources noticeboard:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Swedish Film Database - reliable source for Swedish and non-Swedish films and actors

I make the case there that this is a reliable database; if you agree or disagree, please chime in.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources above. As noted above, Svensk Filmdatabas is not a crowdsourced website but published by the Swedish Film Institute and gets its information from the production companies. /Julle (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Inclusion, however, doesn't mean much more than the fact that it's a Swedish film with some kind of distribution. But other unearthed sources are good enough.) /Julle (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Database generated profiles are not reliable by long consensus and it is WP:PRIMARY so can't be used to establish notability. The argument has already been made that your essentially copying information from one location to another on the internet with no intellectual input, i..e what drives the encyclopeadia. That cannot be as seen as any kind of intellectually reliable way of building an encyclopeadia. scope_creep^Talk 05:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think folk realise how unreliable these databases are. There seems to be this tacit assumption that perhaps due to the organisation naming, its an Institute, therefore its must be reiable. They get there info from the production companies. Notthing could be further from the truth. There is no correlation between how prestigious an organisation is and how good there data is and often its converse because they don't want expose how bad things are and that is seen time and time from British utility company, to German rail companies to America healthcare provides to French nuclear regulatory bodies. Its all the same gig. So please, less and more fact checking. WP:SECONDARY sources are good standard. scope_creep^Talk 05:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a personal bias in this. You have to take into the equation that we are talking here about a movie from 1920. The production company doesn't exist so they didn't provide the information, and there is no suggestion that they filled the information with other databases in the internet. On the contrary there is information that only can be gather from pre internet sources. With your comparison to America healthcare en nuclear regulatory, you are comparing apples with i don't know children toys?. (not every database is the same) The fact is that an institut has published information on a movie and that there is no reason in this case to believe or suggest that they didn't do their due diligence. It scares me that you come with your one speculations and personal opions and make generalizations and projections to other area's but don't provide actual prove for the case at hand (the movie!!). That is something we could use less. The assumption that i, or other users. didn't check facts in this case is so very false and scary. I just wished your had checked the facts yourself before starting an editwar.

If wikipedia can not rely on information provided in this article by using the swedish filmdatabase (and yes your narrative would be beter suited for the IMDb database) then there is no point in making articles. Every kind of source, past and future, has reliability issues but we cannot use a theory on databases in general and therefore exclude every kind of information that comes from a source that calls itself a database. Every database should be judged on its own merits. And i believe in combination of Wikipedia goals the use of the database of the filminstitut is fair use for information provided on a topic about a movie of 1920 from Sweden. (until prove is given otherwise about the specific database) Geerestein3 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making an argument about "these databases", nor am I looking at the name. I'm talking about a specific database, Svensk Filmdatabas, which has long been discussed on Swedish Wikipedia. I'm well familiar with the weaknesses and limitations of this particular source. That note was, however, irrelevant for my decision to argue keep; I think the sources noted in the conversation are good enough without Svensk Filmdatabas. /Julle (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Julle, since the Swedish Film Database covers 10s of 1000s of non-Swedish films, I’m interested in using it as a reliable source in other film articles.

I’m interested in the discussions you mentioned on the Swedish Wikipedia about its strengths and weaknesses. If you are so inclined, I’d be interested in learning more, perhaps either on the AfD talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard link I posted above.

Thanks, —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about how reliable it is for foreign films, I'm afraid. /Julle (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, that’s a bold assertion about the databases. I spent several hours looking at our articles on film databases and I don’t think that’s necessarily true of several such as this one and the British Film Institute’s index.

It’s not hard to capture the information off the film credits of the film itself.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the nominator: @Lithopsian: I'd say this looks like a Snowball keep, would you consider withdrawing the nomination? (The debate about databases seems like a different issue and can be pursued elsewhere, I suppose). Thank you. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lithopsian (talk) 16:30, 3 September 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!} 22:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bialosky Bear[edit]

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

A product line that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NPRODUCT. Searches for sources are only turning up "for sale" type results or price guides rather than any actual coverage of the toys. And even the few paper sources from the era they are from that have been digitized are only ads for them that appeared in magazines/papers rather than coverage about them. I had initially considered simply WP:BOLDly redirecting or merging this to the Gund article, but the product line is not mentioned there, there is no suitable content in this article for merging, and my failure to find any significant coverage makes me think that the product line is ultimately not notable enough to be mentioned there. I am bringing it to AFD rather than simply PRODing this one, in case anyone else has any better luck in locating any print sources from the 70's or 80's. Rorshacma (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Products. Rorshacma (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can probably keep by WP:GNG, as we should be able to write a start class or better article based on independent sources. Otherwise merge to Gund as an WP:ATD. Some SIGCOV here [20] A small amount of SIGCOV here [21], A short mention here [22].

Here's some mixed independent/non-independent coverage that will still be useful for the article [23][24] —siro χ o 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:10, 31 August 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 Cartoon (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On & On (Cartoon song)[edit]

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

non-notable song — Karnataka ^talk 19:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Estonia and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Cartoon (band) which probably just passes the notability requirements. Pichpich (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above and because the article in its current form neither cites any sources nor provides any significant information about the song or its importance. A reader coming here looking for information about this song would be disappointed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 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!} 21:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze Lounge[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, India, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.— TheWikiholic (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per failing WP:GNG and WP:NORG. TH1980 (talk) 02:57, 3 September 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 The Power of Five#Matthew Freeman (introduced in Raven's Gate). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Freeman (Power of Five)[edit]

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

Unsourced and tagged for notability since 2010. Only in-universe information, except the lede. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to The Power of Five. Article is 100% unsourced fancruft. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Power of Five#Matthew Freeman (introduced in Raven's Gate), that section already contains more than enough info on this character, there's no need to merge in any more as none of this is sourced. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:14, 3 September 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 Gaeloideachas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forbairt Naíonraí Teoranta[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Ireland. UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaeloideachas. As an ATD, I wonder if it would be best to summarise some of the relevant/cited/supported content to Gaeloideachas (the organisation into which the subject was seemingly "subsumed" in 2014). And redirect the title there. Guliolopez (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Languages-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaeloideachas, with merge of any material not already there. Cnilep (talk) 07:55, 4 September 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 Action Force (comic strip). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Major[edit]

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

Effectively the same reasoning as Baron Ironblood, beyond me not even realising this page existed until just now. To wit: - research conducted during creation of Action Force (comic strip) and update of Battle Picture Weekly found no sources to support a standalone page for the character. The one sources on the article is weak, it's very OR-y and really the character is a cypher. BEFORE brings up only passing references.

Not against redirecting to either Action Force or Action Force (comic strip). BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like redirect to Action Force (comic strip) gives the reader the most information on the character. —siro χ o 04:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I lazily copied much of the nomination from that of Baron Ironblood, so would just like to note that describing the character as a cypher in this case is inaccurate as over the course of the comic the Black Major actually has a bit of interesting development, both with a dedicated origin arc and his continuation of the Red Shadows after the emergence of Cobra. However, this does not affect the actual nomination as none of this is covered by secondary sources. Just wanted to clarify. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Action Force per nom. There doesn't seem to be much for him. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Action Force (comic strip). This character has no SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:05, 6 September 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 consensus here is to Keep this article on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lion lights[edit]

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

WP:PROMO WP:ADVERT piece, g11 declined because "looks notable" which has nothing to do with g11. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Products, and Kenya. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant coverage from CNN and WIPO already cited in article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The CNN Business piece reads like a promo piece a marketing agency would put out same with the WIPO Piece, although the WIPO piece seems to be more of an informal piece with interview quote throughtout. So while CNN is normally reliable it feels like in this case, it is one of the less reliable end of CNNs articles. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: our WP:G11 policy states:

”This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.”

I don’t think this article meets the criteria for a CSD G11 tag; that’s why I removed the tag. We’ll see what others say.

The article has multiple refs, in particular CNN and the World Intellectual Property Organization’s WIPO magazine.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN Business piece reads like a promo piece a marketing agency would put out same with the WIPO Piece, although the WIPO piece seems to be more of an informal piece with interview quote throughtout. So while CNN is normally reliable it feels like in this case, it is one of the less reliable end of CNNs articles. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These lights won first place in the young inventor category of the European Inventor Awards, sponsored by the European Patent Office. That’s a big deal. Slam dunk notability based on that.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant enough coverage but article very much needs fixing to sound less promotional in tone and images are both copyright violations. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, and any promotionalism has been removed. This discussion should closed per WP:SNOW. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW in the desert. Nice. I'm not getting it to snow, see below. Copyright concerns over the photo, is a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright concerns over a photo means you propose the image for deletion. It's irrelevant to the notability of the topic, or to the original reason this was proposed for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do if the article is to be deleted, they go hand in hand. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Boy this needs a rewrite. It's been covered in NPR [25] although it looks like a different thing. Georgia PBS [26]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kukos on copying the photo from the World Intellectual Property Organization, that's getting a tag as a copyvio. It's sourced there to someone else, who doesn't match the name used here, so red flags all over the place. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two copyvios, both from WIPO. Dude, they basically enforce copyright around the world and coordinate treaties, don't steal from them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, delete the photographs. Your points are irrelevant to the notability or promotional questions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are red flags though, they pop up when people try to promote stuff on here. More times than I'd care for. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the inventor (who doesn't have an article). I don't think the light system is notable, there are a few discussions around the teen that invented them. The Copyvio photos are a red flag though, this is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Louloudi92 uploaded commons:File:Richard Turere-profile-picture.jpg and commons:File:Lion Lights system.jpg to Commons. His user page says he is the assistant editor of WIPO magazine.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Commons admins will look into it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Oaktree b's deletion requests at Commons. No response positive or negative so far:

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Turere-profile-picture.jpg
commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion Lights system.jpg

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability; the red flags certainly don't help either. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely notable. I say, delete people who nominate referenced things like this.Danstarr69 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! That’s a pretty rough comment.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. Even if it wasn't referenced, the references are easy to find.

If they weren't then fair enough.

It's like with someone I added to a 16 year old short film the other day on IMDB. As it was her first, and only film credit as far as I can see, I searched for external links to add to her profile. However I only found two, most likely because she's got married. One self-published. And one partial-interview in a local newspaper. She got to the final of a county Miss World type competition, and got to the final of two national Miss World type competitions, all three in the same year, plus is or was a model and a dancer.

If she had an Wikipedia article, and someone nominated it for deletion then fair enough, as there's nothing to prove she's notable. Did she win those 3 competitions she got to the final of? Who knows, because there's no follow up stories after January 2012 when that news story was published.

Editors are supposed to try and improve articles before nominating them for deletion.

Yet there's 100s or 1000s of people who seem to spend all day, every day, going around deleting or nominating articles for deletion, with no attempt to improve them first. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, we aren't here to rewrite the article after a deletion discussion, we're here to "process the paperwork". Wikipedia has a whole volunteer staff that need to do the work to keep it functioning. There are hundreds of AfD's that come up weekly, in English alone. If we stopped after each one and did the work on the article, the rest would get backed up and we'd never recover. I look at the discussion in AfD, say my piece, move on to the next one. That's my "job" here, that is entirely voluntary I might add. No one pays me to do this, I do it as I enjoy it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without a doubt. Agletarang (talk) 18:57, 2 September 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!} 20:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Emilio Macias Memorial National High School[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2011 with no attempts at improvement. Unless Filipino-language sources can be found, article does not seem to meet WP:NSCHOOL. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no hits on Google Books, Google News and Google News Archives --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom in whole. Does not pass WP:NSCHOOL or any other notability guideline. User:Let'srun 20:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing came up in my searches either, seems to not meet WP:NSCHOOL per above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, this page was seemingly created by an SPA with one total contribution, which was creating this page in 2011 via one edit.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:02, 2 September 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!} 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Cooke[edit]

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

Along with Chris Casamassa, no longer meets notability requirements like many lesser actors from the Mortal Kombat franchise back in the 1990s. Minimal acting credits thereafter and article sourced only with a single interview since 2014. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Martial arts. Natg 19 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal acting credits. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails in WP:GNG nd not have any reliable source Worldiswide (talk) 04:28, 4 September 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!} 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myriad Sun[edit]

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

A non-notable side project of a non-notable local/regional musician (whose main band, however, is notable). There are some brief concert reviews and there has been one single released under the project, with no reviews, all of which is insufficient for WP:NBAND. (WP:GNG is a higher bar and it also isn't met.) —Alalch E. 18:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. —Alalch E. 18:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls short of WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would need coverage in independent sources to meet WP:BAND, nor has the band charted or received a major award. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 5 September 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!} 20:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Casamassa[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. He did get some minor notability for his role in Mortal Kombat but that is his only major acting role. Natg 19 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Martial arts, and Pennsylvania. Natg 19 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stunt Vampire in Blade and uncredited tournament guest in the Karate Kid? These are not notable roles. Rest are about the same level. No sourcing for this stuntvamp. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forgot this article was still around. Like many other '90s Mortal Kombat-associated actors, no longer meets notability requirements. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Lethweimaster (talk) 08:07, 3 September 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!} 20:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Death Seven-ball[edit]

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

Unsourced since May of 2007 with no attempts to substantially improve the article. WP:BEFORE turned up some passing mentions and a forum thread, with most mentions being in the context of a television schedule, not WP:SIGCOV. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sports. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some mentions on a SportsBall website, that's all. Lack of any substantial sourcing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think the issue here is going to be the timing. It's a 2000-2006 events. Despite what the article says, it did run for six years, which is a reasonable run, and clearly for it to be organised/broadcast by ESPN, it's a big enough event. here's AZBilliards covering the event for instance. However, with it being early 2000s, a lot of the sources will be offline or dead by now from my experience of pool sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding that! It looks like they covered it one other time but that article reads a bit primary to me given the ad at the top and bottom. I will do some additional digging later this evening and see if anything else comes up. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the other one is just a reformatted press release, but this one was written by AZBilliards themselves, so would be a suitable measuring stick. It's only one source though, but I would expect contemporary sources from this time period to cover this, which would likely be mostly offline. Maybe newspaper.com is a good place to check. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pool magazines like Billiards Digest and Inside Pool probably also covered it, but I don't have back-issue collections of them any longer. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My additional research tonight did not turn up much else. I found a decent number of passing mentions in the form of awards lists/sports database entries and two new articles. Unfortunately,Cuesight seems to be an online store and PoolRoom seems to mostly be unedited press releases. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found several trivial mentions of the subject in news articles/books or being part of some programming table. The only significant coverage that I came across is in this forum, which does not seem very reliable. For now it seems to lack enough appropriate coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This and some previouso deletions or deletion discussions of borderline-notable media related to cue sports makes me think we need a List of cue sports media sort of article, to listify such subjects, as they clearly pass WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE even if WP:Notability is a bar they're finding it hard to hurdle due to their niche-audience nature not generating coverage that is easy to find. If this one is deleted, please WP:REFUND it to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Sudden Death Seven-ball. There are some other previously deleted pool/billiards/snooker TV show and video game articles that I should probably have dug up out of page histories, as the old stubs on them would make reasonable list entries. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:18, 6 September 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) 17:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dermot FitzGerald[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced sine 2008(!). NewspaperArchive.com and Newspapers.com turned up zero results, while ProQuest turned up an unrelated real estate agent, soccer player, and photographer. Seems to be an obituary, likely written by a family member or friend. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, and the name in Ireland is about as common as Smith is elsewhere. Anyone and everyone pops up in a search. No sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. A search for sources to support the main "claims to fame" (Involved in diving? Partner at PWC? Liquidator of a company that was a defendant in a court case? Associated with an assisted living facility?) do not return anything substantive. The subject is barely mentioned in relation to the court case for example. Far far below a SIGCOV threshold. And I can find nothing at all in relation to diving or elder charities. About the only thing that might contribute to notability is the claimed entry in Who's Who in Ireland: The Influential 1000. However, while I don't have a copy or immediate access to one, this work is billed as a "directory". And, at barely 230 pages and seemingly containing 1000 entries (averaging perhaps 5 entries per page), it seems unlikely that it contains more than a few lines on the subject. The WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTADVOCACY and apparent WP:COI overtones (associated with the article's creation) do little to help. Am frankly kinda surprised this article has not been deleted before now... Guliolopez (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Fails WP:GNG.Spleodrach (talk) 08:30, 1 September 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. Satisfies WP:NPOL as member of national parliament; nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zaal Udumashvili[edit]

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

Prod contested on basis of "Sources seem to exist" but no sources added. Appears to be a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The original article was a series of unsourced quotes feeling more promotional in nature than anything. Unsourced quotes have been removed. IceBergYYC (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IceBergYYC (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does not represent this, but the subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Parliament of Georgia. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the article, added a couple of sources and removed the uncited bits. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing as nominator to Speedy Keep meets NPOL as stated by Curbon7. source [27] IceBergYYC (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to the nominator for withdrawing the nomination when new information shows up. This is a collective search for the right answer and I admire people like IceBergYYC that don't see AfD as a zero-sum test of wills.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:32, 31 August 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) 17:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Rey Malto[edit]

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

I don't see any major reasons for this article to stay on Wikipedia. John Rey Malto is a person working in his field, he got some awards, but I don't see major notability. Nadzik (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Advertising, and Philippines. Nadzik (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Notability doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and the promotional tone of the article certainly does not help either. GuardianH (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I even tried to add some few references until I see that there have been a lot of IP addresses adding junk sources and social media links. Apart from the fact that notability does not meet WP:GNG, the edits revertion war on the edit history make the article looks suspicious of being a promotional article.Ojewuyib (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I'm not sure if those awards are notable in their industry --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:GNG. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:39, 7 September 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 Action Force (comic strip). Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Ironblood[edit]

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

Research conducted during creation of Action Force (comic strip) and update of Battle Picture Weekly found no sources to support a standalone page for the character. The one sources on the article is weak, it's very OR-y and really the character is a cypher. BEFORE brings up only passing references.

Not against redirecting to either Action Force, Action Force (comic strip) or perhaps Cobra Commander, depending on consensus. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like redirect to Action Force (comic strip) gives the reader the most information on the character. —siro χ o 04:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Action Force (comic strip). This character does not have standalone notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive artists[edit]

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

Badly formatted (alphabetized on first name instead of surname) and entirely unsourced list of mostly non-notable people. Of the 18 people here, just four have articles to link to, and virtually all of the others are singletons where the link in this list is the only redlink that exists anywhere in Wikipedia mainspace to their name, meaning that nobody else has ever previously assessed them as potentially notable enough for an article at all. And the only one of those redlinks that does have other redlinks in other articles, the redlinks are expecting a different person, because they're sports team rosters from 20+ years after this article says the artist died.
And while automobiles are obviously a topic that an artist can depict in art, the article cites absolutely no evidence that "automotive art" is an established genre of art that people can specialize in to the exclusion of other genres. Putting a cat in an artwork does not automatically render the creator into a "cat artist" per se, and on and so forth: in order to justify a list of automotive artists, we would also have to be able to write a head article that establishes and sources that "automotive art" is even a standard and recognized and defined and analyzed thing in the first place.
If somebody who works on artist biographies wants to keep a worklist of potential future article topics, they can do that in sandbox or project space, but this would need to meet much higher and stricter standards of notability and sourceability to become mainspace-worthy. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Lists of people. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NLIST and even if it didn't, the small number of entries notable enough for a WP page makes the need for a list questionable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had seen this on NPP, and tagged it for notability and unsourced. The reason why I did not nominate it for deletion is that there actually is a subculture of American artists that might fit with the list, although none of them are currently included on the list. I am thinking of the Custom Car Culture peeps and ace pinstripers like Von Dutch (a.k.a. Kenneth Howard), Ed "Big Daddy" Roth, Robert Williams and other Southern California artists. I am also thinking about what writers like Tom Wolfe author of The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby, art critic Ralph Rugoff among others have written, and the Kustom Kulture show that was presented at the Laguna Art Museum years ago. I am also thinking of photographers who documented low-rider culture, people like Meridel Rubenstein, Danny Lyon as well as earlier photographers who documented hot rod culture, as evidenced in the book: The Birth of Hot Rodding: The Story of the Dry Lakes Era. Also there is Jean Tinguely's Le Safari de la Mort Moscovite, Chris Burden's Big Job and Billy Al Bengston's Dento series. More recent examples of contemporary artists who used actual cars or addressed car culture, include Richard Prince, Rose Bean Simpson, Andrea Polli, Maurizio Cattelan, Erwin Wurm, Gabriel Orozco, Damián Ortega, and many others. There is also the artist Kane Kwei from Ghana known for his carved wood automobile coffins. So I think there is potential here for a notable list but at this time this should either be blown up via WP:TNT and deleted or saved and written in an encyclopedic and historical manner that includes independent reliable sources that specifically address these artist's car-related works. I do believe enough sources exist to improve it, but I'm not sure I have the time to make those improvements before this AfD ends. Netherzone (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 - in the event that this gets Draftified, here are some more suggestions for notable automotive artists: Pete Millar, John Chamberlain, also there is CARtoons Magazine, Tom Medley, Shawn Kerri (a.k.a. Shawn Maureen Fitzgerald). There is also Chris Burden's B-Car, and the notorious volkswagon piece.[28] Also Edward Kienholz' Back Seat Dodge '38 (1964). Most of these are Americans but would imagine there are also global additions that could be made.

I'm surprised (!) by my own interest in this niche genre...guess it must trigger something from my childhood ;-)

If the original article creator is not interested in making improvements, I'm willing to host it in my userspace as a draft for development to see if it can be brought up to meet notable-list criteria, or to start an article on Automotive art (or whatever it might be called) and I can work on it when I find time to do so (now is the busiest time of year at my job.) So I guess my !vote is delete-or-draftify. Netherzone (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - As stated in my comment above I think there is potential here, however the list as written does not meet our criteria for notable lists, nor do the artists. The links in the See Also section do not show that any of these artists, with the exception of one non-notable one, Klaus Wagger, make work that depicts or uses automobiles. Therefore, it should be deleted per WP:TNT, and failing to meet WP:NLIST. Netherzone (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source for the list of is now 1 commercial site (Artland). That site generates some curiously inaccurate artist biographies. Check out Don Breckon who was, evidently "influenced by the artistic atmosphere of the time. Abstract Expressionism prevailed in the 1950s as a primary method of painting, and explored ideas about the sublime and spirituality". Also I don't think Harry Anderson (artist) is an automotive illustrator. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His article does say he did some advertising illustration work for Ford, but you're right, that's clearly not his primary notability claim for the purposes of warranting listing or categorization as such. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi nagar -Thekkalur[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and poorly formatted article about a "sub-village". Neighbourhoods within larger municipalities are not "inherently" notable enough under WP:GEOLAND to be guaranteed their own standalone articles as separate topics from the main entity they're part of -- if the place can't be reliably sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG in its own right, then it should just be discussed within the article on the larger place rather than as its own standalone article, but this is relying entirely on primary sources that aren't support for notability, with not even one piece of GNG-building reliable source coverage shown at all.
Thekkalur, further, only has a population of about 12,000 people, according to its article, which means it isn't large enough to have the depth of reliable source coverage that would needed to make it likely that its "sub-villages" could actually pass GNG on their own as separate topics from Thekkalur.
I'd just redirect this to Thekkalur, but even the page title is improperly formatted and thus not valuable for retention -- I have no prejudice against the creation of a redirect to Thekkalur from a properly formatted version of the title, but one should not be created from this version of the title. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination - SUN EYE 1 17:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing in the article fails to establish notability nor can I find anything to substantiate notability. Searching is difficult as there appears to be many geographical locations that go by the name Gandhi Nagar. No prejudice to recreation if reliable sources can be found to establish notability. I agree with the nominator that a redirect from this title is not helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 4 September 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 Archdeacon of Lismore. ✗plicit 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Burkitt[edit]

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

Only refs on the page are in databases. Nothing I can find that he was anything other than a middle ranking anglican cleric, which doesn't seem to meet WP:CLERGY JMWt (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland. JMWt (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archdeacon of Lismore, although merge would be possible, but it is not as simple as that! This is one of a very large number of permastubs created by an editor who was eventually indefinately banned from article space edits owing to issues with these. However, this is not the most egregious of them. Burkitt was an actual archdeacon, listed in Crockford's. However, that is about as far as we can go. Secondary sourcing is lacking, and archdeacons are not presumed to be notable. Thus we have no presumed notability, and doesn't meet WP:BASIC. As such, this article should not exist. However, although the subject does not meet notability requirements for a page, and there is not enough that can be said about him to actually write a page, Crockfords is itself evidence of notability of a collection per WP:LISTN, and this page could therefore be merged with Archdeacon of Lismore. I had this discussion when the page creator was still active, and we did get consensus, through AfD, for something like that at Archdeacon of Raphoe, where you can see how the archdeacon article can be massively improved if it lists the holders of the office. The problem was that it required merging not one, but 20 archdeacon articles into that page, and consensus held that 4 of the archdeacons were independently notable for a page. This nomination, therefore, does not really sit alone. There are at least 6 pages that would need to be merged, and probably more. Each needs to be considered against WP:BASIC. I spent a lot of time on the Archdeacon of Raphoe article, and have never found sufficient time to prosecute the rest. Merging this one alone makes little sense, but a redirect would at least preserve the information scraped from Crockford's. Whether that is worth a redirect over delete, I will leave for others to decide. I suggest redirect mostly because they are WP:CHEAP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. As noted by Sirfurboy, this is yet another one of these poorly sourced, non-notable and WP:NOTEVERYTHING entries (created by an editor who was blocked for repeatedly creating/recreating exactly these types of articles) who seemed intent on creating sub-stubs on every member of the administration/clergy of the Church of Ireland. As with many others in the creator's "series", there is no indication that the subject meets the applicable criteria. My own WP:BEFORE search returns only the same (very poor and potentially unreliable) sources we find in the article. And maybe a few trivial passing mentions in other works. Far from SIGCOV. Guliolopez (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archdeacon of Lismore without deleting so that in due course a list of archdeacons can be added to that page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sirfurboy and Atlantic306 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Kazlovich[edit]

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

I'm concerned that WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC are both failed here. I've searched in Russian, Belarusian and English and can find nothing better than Soccernet, which is clearly not significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a lack of GNG-passing sources. Agree with nomination's analysis. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Htoo[edit]

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

Having searched in both Burmese and English, I was unable to find anything even close to significant coverage for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Please note that WP:FPL is no longer relevant and Kyaw Htoo is required to have significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no GNG-passing sources to be found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC Worldiswide (talk) 04:29, 4 September 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sami ur Rehman[edit]

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

None of the sources cited are independent WP:RS nor could I find any myself. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE. He has not been involved in a notable production yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be not conforming to npov also it is not notable so Agree •Cyberwolf• 13:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (I think that applies here, forgive me AfD isn't my normal cup of tea, but I came here from a related RM). Returning this to draftspace could also be a potential option, but this article is very WP:POV-y so either option works. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a clear cut case of G11. I have tagged the page. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alrick Toney[edit]

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

I revived the SME Sport source but it's just a trivial mention, this means that all 7 references used in the article are trivial coverage only. There is no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and the one tournament that he was runner-up in is below the requirements for WP:NBAD. This article is lengthy but it's almost entirely just a listing of his youth results, which don't confer notability. My WP:BEFORE search found nothing better than Barbados Advocate, Guyana Chronicle and QN Sports, all of which are passing mentions of Toney. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and South America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NLS Debate[edit]

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

This article doesn’t match the required prominence — it is smaller than two other major Indian tournaments, the NALSAR IV and the IIT Bombay Debate, in size, and other similar or larger and similar or more internationally representative pools, such as the Oxford IV, the Yale IV, or the Sofia Open, don’t have Wikipedia articles either. Additionally, the article has pretty significant issues, including random sentences from unrelated articles. Tejas Subramaniam (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing much coverage in English, which I believe is the language of the competition. JMWt (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Najjuka[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG, WP:NBAD or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Best sources found were New Vision, a very brief news article about her intention to win an under-18 school tournament, and Uganda Radio Network, which briefly mentions her losing in a second round match. None of this is significant, detailed coverage of her as an individual. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 31 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oyabun (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply releasing music in 2023 isn't article-worthy. No charted singles, no sort of media coverage in RS. "We have a person that went to school and releases music" is what the article tells us, that's just not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We are not SoundCloud, we dont list every single person who’s ever released music. They gotta be notable at some point and this artist is not. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC with no charting songs or albums plus artist has been inactive for five years. (Special mention to the shameless Kurt Cobain namedropping.) sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with immediate effect, Topic doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER guidelines. Every reference is a dead link. At least 2 or more reliable sources which are independent of each other are required for musicians (Especially Living people) WP:BLP . Both talking about the subject "indept" is required to keep this article In the mainspace , which could than later be improved by editors but further than that. No WP: Significant Coverage established. Frankymulls (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlos Gary[edit]

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

BEFORE is bringing up largely self-published with a few passing mentions on GBooks. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Comics and animation. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source assessment table. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
African American literature book club	Biography	?	✘ No
Self authored book			✘ No
Creators	?	?	✘ No
Official blog of Charlos gary			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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 List of ambassadors of Guatemala to Taiwan. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olga María Aguja Zúñiga[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not automatically nor inherently notable. No in depth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Guatemala. LibStar (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Taiwan, Ecuador, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ambassadors of Guatemala to Taiwan (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO as indicated by nom. No issue with a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 4 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalnunsiama[edit]

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

Article created after professional debut but it doesn't look like he played any further games. I'm not seeing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC here. Best I could find were The Fan Garage, two passing mentions in results summaries, Sportskeeda, two trivial mentions about scoring an own goal, and Indian Sports News, which mentions him once. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no GNG-passing sources to be found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:59, 3 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sosna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication that Sosna has become any more notable since the last AFD in 2017. Article creator was able to find more sources than I was, but it's still nearly all primary coverage, plus brief announcements and passing mentions. Since then, he's moved to a new station, and been on two teams that won a Technology Emmy and a regional Emmy respectively.

It's been written once again by user Jdlovitz, a SPA whose edits are exclusively about Jonathan Lovitz and his husband Steve Sosna. Right after I warned jdlovitz about conflict of interest, an anon editor (whose edits since February 2023 have also been SPA about these two people) began editing the article. Neither account has responded yet to my notice at their talk pages about logged-out editing. Wikishovel (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. Wikishovel (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Below is a source assessment table. Beyond the promotional aspects of the article, this demonstrates that based on sources we have the subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Wikishovel (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Wikishovel
CBS Baltimore, "Steve Sosna - CBS Baltimore"[29]		?	profile page from his employer, full of personal detail so probably self-written	✘ No
Philadelphia Gay News "Steve Sosna, braving the most dangerous storms" [30]	?	?	A friendly getting-to-know-you interview, and interviews are primary sources	✘ No
Kean University "Kean Earth Science Graduate Takes Meteorology World by Storm" [31]		?	Promotional alumnus profile by his university	✘ No
NBC New York "Steve Sosna"			a tag cloud returning a single weather report co-written by Sosna in 2011	✘ No
MSNBC "Irma Regains Strength as Category 4, Eyewall Reformed" [32]			a weather report by Sosna	✘ No
NBC10 Philadelphia "Steve Sosna, Dray Clark Join NBC10 Team"[33]			short promo announcement from his employer that he and another person are joining the company	✘ No
Adweek "Philadelphia Meteorologist Steve Sosna Moving to Baltimore" [34]		?	short announcement of a job move sourced only by Sosna's Facebook. About half of it is quotes from his FB post, not WP:SIGCOV, and not really secondary	✘ No
American Meteorological Society "List of AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologists (CBM)" [35]			His name is included on a list of 958 people who achieved a certification.	✘ No
NBC Los Angeles "NBC and Telemundo Owned Stations Win Technology Emmy for StormRanger Radar Trucks" [36]			Article by his employer about their team winning an Emmy for use of new technology in reporting, but Sosna's name is not mentioned.	✘ No
NewscastStudio "NBC wins tech Emmy for StormRanger mobile radar fleet"[37]	?	?	Trade article about NBC winning the tech Emmy, and again Sosna isn't mentioned.	✘ No
NATAS Mid-Atlantic Chapter, "2022 Emmy Recipients". [38]			Lists his name in the team of 12 that won a regional Emmy	✘ No
New York Times "Jonathan Lovitz, Steve Sosna" [39]			Paid-inclusion wedding notice in the NYT's local news, with a mention that Sosna is "the meteorologist for weekend evenings at WCAU, an NBC affiliate". Primary, and not SIGCOV.	✘ No
NBC News ""A National Coming Out Day message to LGBTQ youth from a newly married gay man"[40]		?	A short "Community Voices" piece by Sosna on National Coming Out Day, about his marriage. Primary source, hosted by his employer.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete It's a no-go, based on the chart above. Zero sources we can use. None found either that I can use. Oaktree b (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you use a weather report for sourcing, well, just don't. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per source evaluation table Nagol0929 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 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. article deleted so no reason to keep this AFD open. (non-admin closure) ArcAngel (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andre (Businessman)[edit]

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

non-notable person. four sources are reprints of the same thing, whereas others have no mention. can only find profiles — Karnataka ^talk 09:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 31 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Rohallah[edit]

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

Has 5 caps which is usually a good indicator of notability but I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5, even when doing a WP:BEFORE search in his native language (عزیز روح‌الله). Article sourced only to a database source, which is not enough for notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no GNG-passing sources to be found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:59, 3 September 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 Draftify‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Bijelić[edit]

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

Article created on the basis that Bijelić might meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC in the future as his career develops but there is no indication that he currently meets the guidelines, so possibly WP:TOOSOON here. In my searches of Austrian and Croatian sources, the best that I could find was Večernji list, which mentions him a couple of times, and Nacional, which is clearly two trivial mentions. Unless anyone finds anything better, this young footballer isn't notable yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Austria, and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify if anything, he's playing at a pretty well-renowned youth team. I reckon coverage should start coming in quickly, especially if he gets promoted, so this looks like just a case of TOOSOON.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - clearly plays for a relevant reserve team in a major second-tier football league, and sources will potentially come to surface as this player develops within the RB Salzburg system. WP:TOOSOON, but don't outright delete. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm okay with sending to draft Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 6 September 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!} 07:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Bjelobradić[edit]

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

No indication of notability now that WP:FPL and the old WP:NFOOTBALL have been deprecated. To see whether this meets WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, I did a Croatian source search and found nothing better than Index, which is a news story about drink driving. It's more than a passing mention but I'm hesitant to call someone notable just because of a news report about driving under the influence on its own. Other sources found include Jutarnji, Sportnet and Dnevnik. All of those mentions are trivial and the last one is a blog so probably isn't WP:RS anyway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no GNG-passing sources to be found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 16:09, 5 September 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!} 07:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Suburbs SC[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Seems like a minor league soccer team which merged with Box Hill United SC more than a decade ago. If there is anything from this page which can be salvaged and WP:VERIFIED with RS, it could be merged to a history section on that page. JMWt (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. JMWt (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:58, 3 September 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!} 07:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyte Progressive High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Verifiability challenged since 2019. Google News Archives turns out they attended English seminars at Leyte and that's it. Current references in the article are either internal or directories. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. HueMan1 (talk) 02:41, 4 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woman Kills Injured Man[edit]

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

It is hard to find sources due to the fairly generic title, however I can't find much which would appear to meet the WP:GNG. With regard to the existing sources on the page, one is from the museum which displays the piece (so not independent) and another is a dead link to another online encyclopaedia (which would not appear to be a RS and may even be circular referencing from a WP project). So at best there appears to only be one source on the page that could count towards notability. JMWt (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Norway. JMWt (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep there’s a book ref (snippet) here and a magazine piece here. In addition it’s part of a major collection of modern art. Mccapra (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment on these sources, the first is just a preview on GBooks so it isn't possible to make a definitive judgment but it looks like a passing mention. The second consists of two paragraphs. I'm not convinced either meet the standards of RS needed by the notability standards. JMWt (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "fairly generic title" -huh?? It's probably no good looking for sources in English. The artist's bio lists a number of books on this rather colourful artist and his work published well after this is painted, so I think we can be confident there would be enough in these. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Woman Kills Injured Man" gives news articles about road accidents. The fact that the artist is notable doesn't mean every work of theirs is notable because notability is not inherited. JMWt (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that at all. But notable artists about whom a lot has been published will have significan coverage of all significant works. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well then consider this a challenge; show me some. JMWt (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not having access to a good Norweigan library at the moment I can't. But perhaps someone else can. You do realize there is no obligation for sources to be online? Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You realise that when challenged you have to show that RS exist rather than just postulating that they must? JMWt (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, prose has now been added about its initial display. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 3 September 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. Feel free to create a Redirect at this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangur Nagar metro station[edit]

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

Very similar to this nomination, fails GNG and SNG, and no sources provide SIGCOV. Redirecting to List of Mumbai Metro stations may be a good option. Timothytyy (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, and India Timothytyy (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just an opinion but I suspect very recently built metro stations rarely have much coverage (compared to the whole line). But maybe this is a level of inbuilt bias on en.wp - I suspect all London Underground stations have en.wp pages. JMWt (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment JMWt is right about coverage, which is the key issue. It's not necessarily about bias. London Underground stations often have articles because they've been there for long enough for a lot to have happened, and a lot of people to have written about them. Picking one completely at random, Sloane Square tube station has an article not because it's between South Kensington and Victoria, but because it's been there since 1868, quite a few people have written about it, Gilbert and Sullivan included it in their lyrics, the inspiration for Peter Pan sadly killed himself there, it's been damaged by bombs twice, and was the first in London to have escalators. When there's more to say about Bangur Nagar metro station than its timetable and location, it will make an interesting article. But for metro stops that are just a stop, it is more helpful to give our readers an overview of the entire line/route, and redirect the station names to this overview. Information matters; it doesn't get better by splitting it into a lot of itty bitty articles with nothing to say. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  In fairness that's comparing apples with oranges - any railway station in a large metropolis which has been around for hundreds of years is likely to have coverage. The question is whether any station on a metro line which has only been built in the last few years (such as Nine Elms tube station in London) really does. In my view it probably doesn't, and hence if there was no bias new London Underground stations would not be presumed notable any more than those in India. JMWt (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  JMWt completely agreed, I wouldn't defend nine elms if it turned up at AfD. That's a perfect example of a well-written article about absolutely nothing, all cosmetics and no content. I suppose the problem is how to handle a few individual non-notable stations on an otherwise notable line. I still think it's best to have one article dealing with the logistics of the entire line, who uses it, where it runs, etc., and individual articles for only those stations where we've got something (and sourced) to say. But viewpoints will always differ on that. And there is definitely systematic bias. Elemimele (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WE can revisit in a hundred years perhaps, but there just isn't notability now. For it to be notable, stuff has to happen at the station, or be written about somewhere. Nothing found for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBLA International Competition[edit]

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

"a Sicilian music competition". No references outside its own website in external links (note: single footnote to a NYT article seems to be a red herring, as that article doesn't mention this competition) since the article was created over 15 years ago. My BEFORE does not suggest this event meets WP:GNG or (failed but useful as a sanity test) WP:NAWARD. There are few mentions in passing that confirm this event exists, but nothing to suggest it is important enough to merit an encyclopedic article. No Italian interwiki. Lastly, the text in the article reads like it was copied from the organization's marketing brochure: " the IBLA Foundation has been dedicated to discovering new talent from around the world. ... Throughout the years the IBLA Grand Prize winners have received the opportunity to be presented in such prestigious venues... IBLA winners have received worldwide critical acclaim with praises ... " Etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, and Italy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 31 August 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.

I find that there are rational and policy-based arguments on both sides of the debate, and neither has a clear numerical lead. This means that the appropriate outcome of the AFD is no consensus.

I have carefully considered my decision before closing, and will not change it based on talk page requests. If any editor believes I have not followed the deletion process correctly, please proceed directly to WP:DRV; I waive any requirement that there may be to discuss or consult with me first. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Mother Teresa[edit]

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

Clear POV cruft. It is easy to find criticism about just any worldwide icon but it doesn't means we need a page on it.

The main page already has Mother Teresa#Criticism so this page is entirely unnecessary. See WP:NOPAGE and this section of WP:NOCRIT. Capitals00 (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At this writing, the parent article is 123.7 KB in length; this AFD target is 35.2 (according to popup data). Beyond weakly suggesting WP:Article size#Breaking out trivial or controversial sections as recommended reading while handling cases like this, I'll let others determine the latter's fate. May God have mercy on this subject's contributors... --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for neutral POV and cleanup. It seems fairly clear that high profile authors have written in-depth articles on this topic, therefore it is unquestionably notable. There is a lot more to say therefore this could easily overload the parent article, so a seperate article seems justified. JMWt (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be a Merge but I'm certainly not going to volunteer for the job. It's impossible to achieve a neutral point of view on an article whose title is basically "overview of everything bad about X". The very definition of the article is that it is not a neutral point of view. Contrast this with J._K._Rowling, a high-profile person who has attracted well-documented criticism. Instead of having a criticism section, the article buds off into Political views of J. K. Rowling, a neutral title that permits us to describe those who've criticised her points of view, as well as the points of view. We ought to do something similar with Mother Teresa. The problem is that because the criticism covers more-or-less every aspect of her life and ministry, we can't bud off a new article for just the bit that gets criticised. Basically the only fair and neutral thing to do would be to merge the criticisms into every single bit of the main article, but Slgrandson is right to note that the article may become rather long (at the moment it's the references that make it so bulky, which is less of a concern), and I feel rather the same as they do about God having mercy on anyone who cares to attempt the task. Elemimele (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so you don't think it is possible to have a en.wp page describing a contentious issue? JMWt (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply unnecessary. One can create Criticism of Martin Luther King Jr. and flood it with anybody who opposed him, but wikipedia should not be used for it per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NOCRIT. Capitals00 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a view. Out there in the rest of en.wp this is clearly not the current consensus given there are many criticism pages like Criticism of Wikipedia. The usual notability standards apply, and if many writers have published notable RS books on the topic, it is notable. JMWt (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no scandal that involved Mother Teresa which could be converted into "criticism". Capitals00 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt it's certainly possible to have articles about contentious issues, but you have to have both sides of the argument in one article, or it's not neutral. I rather like Tomorrow and tomorrow's suggestion of Public image of Mother Teresa. Elemimele (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SOAPBOX. Violates NPOV. I don't see how anything can be NPOV if its' a stand-alone listing of the negatives of one individual, without the positives. All sourced, of course. But there's no NPOV here. And it serves no purpose except to list all the alleged shortcomings of Mother Teresa. For any public figure, alive or deceased, it is not hard to find published criticisms of them as individuals or of their accomplishments - and source each one with some public figure or organization making the accusation. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is simply a diatribe that cites partisan figures who have an axe to grind against the subject. As noted by the OP, any criticism is already mentioned in the main article. desmay (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main article on Mother Teresa already has a criticism section. No need for a new page just on one person. No extensive academic literature exists on this topic. No criticism pages exist for Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler either so why single out this individual? It looks like dumping ground for polemic sources bashing an individual rather than a worthy encyclopedic entry. Most sources are newspaper commentaries, not academic so WP:NOTNEWS seems applicable here. Looks like WP:COATRACK of the main Mother Teresa article. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No criticism pages exist for Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler either" - it's interesting that you're comparing Mother Theresa to Hitler and bin-Laden. We have an entire category for criticism of individuals. DS (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that people who have extensive criticisms like bin Laden and Hitler do not have pure criticism pages. This asymmetry shows the inconsistency of pages on criticism. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. The article about Mother Teresa is already very long. Having a separate article seems to be justified. I agree that separate "criticism" articles should be handled very carefully, but that is debatable on the talk pages of those articles. Retimuko (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not aWP:COATRACK. A coatrack is an aritcle that pretends to be about something different from the actual topic. For lots of (hopefully) obvious reasons, articles in the format "Criticism of..." I am sure would normally need swift deletion. However the subject is notable in it's own right, there are plenty very reliable sources specifically dedicated to this topic, I list some examples below. Normally, the obvious place for criticisms should be in the article itself, but at 125,975 bytes, WP:SIZERULE directs us towards splitting content. It is therefore normal to have a the section Mother_Teresa#Criticism and then a fuller article. Sources that illustrate meeting WP:GNG:

Why Mother Teresa is still no saint to many of her critics, Washington Post
‘Troubled individual:’ Mother Teresa no saint to her critics, CNN
Mother Teresa's Canonization: Controversy Mars Nun's Work, NBC
A Critic’s Lonely Quest: Revealing the Whole Truth About Mother Teresa, New York Times
Mother Teresa was 'anything but a saint,' Canadian study says, Globe and Mail
Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, Slate
Mother Teresa: Why the Catholic missionary is still no saint to her critics, The Independent
Unmasking Mother Teresa's Critics (2016 book)
The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice 1995 book

I'd encourage others to search for sources. CT55555(talk) 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources you mentioned are newspapers and polemical. There are not much in terms of academic sources on this. The article shows such poor sourcing. As such, the content can be condensed and Put in the main article of Mother Teresa. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, two of the links above are books. If for any reason you discount newspapers as reliable sources, then please consider these academic sources:

Was Mother Teresa Maximizing Her Utility? An Idiographic Application of Rational Choice Theory Susan Kwilecki, Loretta S. Wilson , Vol. 37, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 205-221 (17 pages), https://doi.org/10.2307/1387521•
Larivée, S., Sénéchal, C., & Chénard, G. (2013). Les côtés ténébreux de Mère Teresa. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008429812469894 (translation: The Dark Sides of Mother Teresa) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429812469894
Mother Teresa's care for the dying, David Jeffrey, Joseph, O'Neill, Gilly Burn Published:October 15, 1994DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(94)91759-0 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2894%2991759-0/fulltext (described as https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/25/why-to-many-critics-mother-teresa-is-still-no-saint/ a critical account of the care in Teresa’s facilities in 1994]")
From the University of Montreal: Mother Teresa: anything but a saint...

CT55555(talk) 19:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another book: https://www.librarything.com/work/159175 CT55555(talk) 19:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These do not look like extensive criticisms of Mother Teresa that cannot be put in the criticism section of the main article on her. Also some of these are not full criticisms of her, like the Lancelet piece you mentioned which is the most academic of the sources you mentioned. Very few academic sources exist, most are newspaper commentaries. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIARY apply here. Like other have motioned above, there is no Criticism of Martin Luther King Jr. and although he was extensively criticized for being non-violent and using inefficient tactics for black people's well being as opposed to political showmanship, there is no stand alone article for it. The criticism section of Mother Teresa is enough to place these criticisms and responses. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep raising the bar. But the bar is WP:GNG and I think even the newspaper articles pass that bar. In combination with books and academic sources, I think we are way past the that WP:GNG bar.

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is part of a commonly quoted essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and is my thinking about the relevance of pointing out a lack of articles for other people. I could list all the "Criticisms of..." articles to rebut that (Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of Pope John Paul II) but these tend not to be considered persuasive arguments at AFD. CT55555(talk) 11:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and Muhammad are world icons and popes are always major representatives of religion and politics as well. But Mother Teresa is a poor nun. Seems out of proportion and not worthy of a stand alone article. I never said criticism has no place. It’s just overdone on a poor nun. I don’t see a criticism of Dalai Lama or criticism of saints page. Does seem like WP:ATTACK. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is literally a saint. Jesus was poor too. But that's besides the point. It's not about a criteria, it's about what reliable sources publish. CT55555(talk) 13:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meher Baba’s critics was deleted. Criticism about Jesus is mainly about diverse interpretations that he has been subjected to but there is no such case with Mother Teresa since her biography is totally conclusive. Criticism of Pope John Paul II needs to go as well but I will think about it later. Capitals00 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GNG only says what necessary to keep an article, but see WP:N: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and that's what's being discussed here. Nigej (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an WP:ATTACKPAGE that violates WP:NPOV based on the writings of those affiliated the New Atheist movement. NishantXavier (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

critique ≠ attack CT55555(talk) 18:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, I'm from India, and I can tell you Hitchens et al have no clue what they're talking about. Hitchens should first come to Calcutta and other places in India and minister for hours to the Poorest of the Poor and the Sick and the Needy like Mother Theresa did, after that he can run his mouth off, enlightened by his experience. Talk is cheap. Here is a Wall Street Journal Video mention some in India, Devout Hindus, worship Mother Theresa as a Goddess. They were and are so impressed by her life of sacrifices and love for the Poor and maternal kindness. Hitchens didn't get any of that. He envied her fame and success, which she never asked for, but got because she showed true love. Mother Theresa donated 1000s of hours of her life helping and sacrificing for India's Poor? How many hours of his life did Hitchens give for India's Poor? That says it all. That's why people of all castes and all faiths in India love, respect and venerate Saintly Mother Theresa. NishantXavier (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ Video: "Why Some in India Worship Mother Teresa as a Goddess" https://youtube.com/40rO1im27R8 NishantXavier (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your original research and point of views are noted, but should not be influential in our editing decisions. CT55555(talk) 18:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename: There are reliable sources, both in print and online covering the topic. Perhaps the article should be renamed to Philanthropy of Mother Teresa with the respective criticism section included (WP:UNDUE). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As someone who has edited this article quite a bit trying to clean it up, I can honestly say I don't see how it can be salvaged in a NPOV way. There isn't scandals which this is talking about, this is simply a litany of primary sources of certain individuals' criticisms. The only balanced form for this content would be an article like Public image of Mother Teresa, which would include both negative and (vastly more commonly held) positive views.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Criticism of individuals, shows the majority are articles turned into re-directs to the main bio article of the individual. Which probably gives us an idea of how to handle this in tune with Wikipedia criticisms of individuals. Otherwise, much of the above dialog reminds me of someone I know who has a habit of negating compliments about an individual with, "Oh, yeah ... I can tell you things about that person you won't like." That does seem to be where this is going ... editors who want to make sure we know Mother Teresa was a flawed human being. — Maile (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - without exception, those redirects were created as redirects. DS (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify why you feel that none of the reported criticism rises to the level of "scandal"? DS (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article mentions only those views that comes from sources that merely disagreed with the views or actions of Mother Teresa instead of pointing out any incidents where she universally deserved contempt. That is clearly missing here. Capitals00 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant because rather than criticizing scandalous occurrences, the article is currently more like "list of negative things these five people have said about Mother Teresa". The article is more to do with Hitchens and co, than Teresa and most of the sources are FROM these critics. The only proof that these claims are notable are THE CLAIM ITSELF. How is that possibly neutral in an encyclopedic setting?

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice is a notable book, plus all the newspaper articles I listed here that are news about the criticism appears to refute your point that the claims are not notable, I think. CT55555(talk) 00:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book is notable, and many of the articles are talking about Hitchen's book/criticism. But this does not mean a "Criticism of Mother Teresa" article must exist. Instead I'd say the content belongs in the book's article, or in Hitchen's article in a section called "views on Mother Teresa". Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like attack page. Most of the sources are partisan in nature and it's not possible to achieve neutrality here. NavjotSR (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- After reading nearly half article I think this should be kept. It requires cleanup. Since this is about criticism it seems hard to maintain NPOV. But it still deserves to be a seperate article because the content is elaborated and claims are supported with references. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a difficult one. On the one hand, the topic of criticism is obviously notable. On the other hand, the article is poorly-written: in some cases it has such big WP:UNDUE issues that it looks like the article wants to persuade the reader that she was a bad person. The article needs to be much more balanced. IMO, whether WP:TNT applies here to justify the deletion or not is where the discussion should focus on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991, even if we accept that the topic of criticism is notable, I don't think it is balanced to have an article solely dedicated to it. Would you consider WP:TNTing in favour of an article called Public image of Mother Teresa or something similar which would include both positive and negative? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomorrow and tomorrow: my thoughts are further eloborated on below in my !vote comment. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources listed by CT55555 supports that a standalone article is warranted. However, I agree with others that the article is currently in a poor state. Renaming the article to use a less emotive word that "criticism" could also help. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ATTACK. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia giving summaries of topic. This page goes well beyond that, per WP:UNDUE. To go into such detail about this woman see grossly excessive to me. A criticism section in her article seems sufficient to me. Nigej (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully review the WP:ATTACK policy. Let me give a couple of relevant quotes "An attack page is ... material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced". The article in question is well sourced and is written in encyclopedic tone. And further the policy states: "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject". So according to the policy the article in question is not an attack. Retimuko (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the fact that it's called "Criticism of ..." indicates that it will be entirely negative in tone. Sentences like: "Christopher Hitchens described Mother Teresa's organisation as a cult that promoted suffering and did not help those in need." don't seem encyclopedic to me, even if it is sourced. This article is simply a random list of negative things, bloated to excessive length. A few sentences in the main article is more than enough. At the end of the day she's just a nun; we don't even have an article Criticism of Adolf Hitler, why we should have one on her is a mystery to me. All very excessive and not encyclopedic. Nigej (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text you quoted tells the reader neutrally, without taking sides, in encyclopedic tone about the fact that Hitchens, a well-known writer, wrote something, that was widely published, and therefore notable. What is your criteria for calling such notable facts "random" and not encyclopedic? What do you mean by "she's just a nun"? She is a very famous nun, a nun promoted to a saint. Not many nuns were that famous. All these comparisons to Hitler and others seem to be of the WP:OTHERSTUFF sort. Retimuko (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay, and should not be quoted as policy. I think @Nigej is raising a valid point that having an article "Criticism of Person A" while not having similar articles for the vastly more criticized Person B, Person C, or Person D creates a WP:neutrality concern where the wikivoice simply by having the article seems to unduly privilege the criticism of one person. It isn't that "in order to have this article, we need to have some other article, it's the fact that Wikipedia very rarely uses "Criticism of Person" articles, and so we need to consider how it will look for our readers to have this article. That is what being discussed, and is a completely different to what WP:OTHERSTUFF is talking about. Given that NPOV is one of Wikipedia's foundational policies this is a very serious concern, and not something that can be dismissed lightly and certainly not on the basis of a mere essay. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you misrepresent or misunderstand what NPOV means. It is not about giving equal weight to positive and negative information about something or somebody. It is about Wikipedia not taking sides and describing what reliable sources say, not exaggerating, not downplaying, not making judgements in Wikipedia voice. Retimuko (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that my argument is partly based on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. However, my point is that there are countless thousands of "Criticism of Person" articles that could be created, but we only seem to have a very small number. To me this indicates that editors are using the discretion at WP:N which says that even if there are sources which might indicate that an article is justified "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." And that would be my choice here, to "merge" this into the main article (although I'm not sure any actual merging is required since the main article already has such a section). This sort of article is problematic for Wikipedia. It's difficult to maintain NPOV and UNDUE and it's not something we do at all well. More suitable for a political magazine rather than an encyclopedia IMO. Nigej (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"there are countless thousands of "Criticism of Person" articles that could be created, but we only seem to have a very small number" - so what are you waiting for, then? DS (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I create any such articles when I know that Wikipedia is truly terrible at maintaining them in any sort of encyclopedic style: WP:CANOFWORMS? Nigej (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Criticism" and "Controversies" sections are bad enough in biographical articles; having a separate article for such sections is even worse. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is clearly a topic which passes WP:GNG, and is large enough to where a split from the main article is desirable. If there are any POV concerns they should be dealt with in the article, AfD is not cleanup. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That the topic of criticism is notable is very obvious. However, the article in its current form is too crappy, poorly written and way below encyclopedic standards. It is a mashup of "This guy criticized her for..." and "Another guy came to her defence". Cleanup is applied when there are major parts of the article with such issues. But in this case, the entire article is substandard. IMO, this one should be deleted as per WP:TNT, and another one should be created (preferably named "Public image of Mother Teresa" because her praise is as significant and notable as her criticism is). The new article should be much more balanced, both in POV and tone, and focus on widely discussed academic sources rather than mention what has been said by every journalist out there. At the moment, this really is not much more than a demonization page. The fact that other demonization articles exist on Wikipedia should not justify the existence of this one. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. In your attempt to show that the article is beyond improvement you use statements such as "too crappy" and "poorly written" that seem to be baseless. You seem to grossly downplay books by well-known authors published by reputable publishing houses. You call them "mashup" of "this guy...". This sort of argumentation seems to be borderline "I don't like it". Retimuko (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"AFD is not a cleanup" is an essay, not a policy. I am not "attempting" anything, I just expressed my opinion. It is not a matter of liking or disliking, though I do not give a f about what you think about me and my intention. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "AFD is not a cleanup" is an essay, not a policy

So is WP:TNT that you bought up as an argument. Retimuko (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT is not my argument, it is an essay that gives guidance on how to proceed in cases where the argument I made is applied to an article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is "AFD is not a cleanup". Retimuko (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NPOV as there is not enough controversy to justify a seperate article from the controversy section in the main article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOPAGE. She is globally celebrated so obviously she is going to attract criticism for her work but to think that we need a dedicated page for criticism about a 20th century icon is simply too much. CharlesWain (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully look at WP:NOPAGE. It says that "the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes". In my view your wording suggests that you are using you personal dislike. Retimuko (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - There's a massive amount of coverage of criticism of Mother Theresa. Multiple books have been written on the subject. It's absolutely notable, and is categorically not an WP:ATTACK page (see WP:NEGATIVESPIN for the explicit exception). The question is whether it needs its own page or should just be included in the main article, which at this point is inadequate. So retain a bunch of the material and make the decision based on article size vs. WP:NOPAGE. I'm torn between them, but lean slightly towards merge. At very least, I'd be curious what a better fleshed out version of a criticism (or similar) section of the main page would look like. I'd also be curious to hear from editors who may have tried to expand that section in the past, and whether/why their efforts were unsuccessful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mother Teresa, as one of the most important Christian figures of the 20th century, is at the center of criticism from atheists. It has more to do with religion itself than with her. The criticism in the main article is more than enough.HokutoKen (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. A bunch of new or relatively new users showing up to delete here. Wonder where this has been posted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my case, to quench your curiosity, here at the Article alerts. HokutoKen (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links to this page CT55555(talk) 22:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We must be careful not to distort the RFC by claiming there has been canvassing when is no evidence of canvassing concurring. Please remember that 'new accounts who disagree with me' are not automatically canvassed. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what a "new user" is. Probably I'm not one but don't usually comment in this area. In my case it came up in a list of "User contributions" for a couple of users I'd had interactions with on a completely different topic. No canvassing involved. Nigej (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. A bunch of new or relatively new users showing up to delete here Hmmm, maybe you should read Poisoning the well. Apart from HokutoKen, all the other editors who have !voted "Delete" have been on Wikipedia for at least 2 years (most have been for more than 4). So there is not a "bunch of new or relatively new" editors. Not to mention that the value of a comment is judged by its basis on deletion policies and guidelines, not by anything else. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Even Hokutoken is not a new user. He is editing since last year without becoming dormant. Another editor here is "Shaan Sengupta" who is editing since this year but he clearly came here after watching my recent contributions but he was not canvassed. Template removed. Capitals00 (talk) 00:36, 8 September 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!} 04:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess María de la Esperanza of Bourbon-Two Sicilies[edit]

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

Biography article about the youngest daughter of Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Two Sicilies and his wife Princess Louise of Orléans. All the details are purely genealogical. I bring it for community evaluation. Sturm (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a family tree repository. The alleged noteworthiness stems from marrying a "prince" who was born over 20 years after monarchy was abolished in Brazil. This is part of a cross-wiki spam promoted by the current (alleged) heirs to the Brazilian throne who are trying to forge notability for themselves. No notability as per WP:GNG or WP:PEOPLE. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:58, 31 August 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 Trikut Hill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trikut cable car accident[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, almost all the coverage is from April 2022. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to a new section about the cablecar on the Trikut Hill article. There is plenty of more recent coverage available, e.g. [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. The most recent of those is from less than a week ago, so the nominator has clearly not done a (sufficient) WP:BEFORE. I'm happy with either keeping or merging, but there is definitely no cause for deletion Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now expanded it based on two of those sources but more improvement is certainly possible. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trikut Hill. Not worthy of its own article per WP:NOTNEWS. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:03, 31 August 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!} 06:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Winning[edit]

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

An orphan article and marked for notability concerns 5 years ago. Lacking WP:SIGCOV about her. Interviews where she is quoted talking about her product is not WP:SIGCOV about her. Possible self promotion. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The app or the company is potentially notable, but the individual doesn't seem to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Also, an editor recently added content including references to the article, an evaluation of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Purely promotional with primary sourcing and reads like a resume. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:09, 31 August 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!} 22:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John A. O'Keefe (judge)[edit]

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

Lacks notability. It’s also a one sentence article that was last updated 4 years ago. Note that WP:JUDGE is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for notability. NM 03:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NM 03:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no refs to establish notability. Most similar judges don't have articles: Federal Court of Canada#Current judges.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do judges of the Federal Court of Canada fall under the criteria of WP:JUDGE? I would have thought that judges of the Federal Court of Appeal certainly do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this was changed into a bundled nomination of four articles, I'm relisting this discussion to solicit more comment from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to lack sufficient references. - Indefensible (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All are automatically notable under WP:JUDGE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Per WP:JUDGE, holding office is only a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion, which is WP:BASIC that these articles fail at. NM 18:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see a stronger consensus here and the questions raised demonstrate a lack of clarity about notability about individuals holding the position of judge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with NM's interpretation of WP:JUDGE. Per the additional criteria, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. In this case, there appears to be zero secondary coverage of the four nominated judges. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:12, 31 August 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!} 02:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Draper[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, Internet, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been able to find no in-depth coverage in any sources. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your view that this biography doesn't meet the policy requirements, remember that we are talking about a living person here so please try not to sound so harsh towards the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being harsh, I am merely saying how this subject meets notability requirements. I have no view on the living person, to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you do have a view on the living person. I'm saying your comment could be read as expressing such a view, especially if the living person concerned is not familiar with Wikipedia jargon. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go. Seriously I've never encountered this in my 16 years in Wikipedia and I've been involved in thousands of AfDs. It's a deletion discussion not a personal appraisal. You should know better as an admin. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is not a personal appraisal. The point is that not everybody who reads these discussions does and we should be careful to avoid giving the impression that it is. It's never too late to start being conscientious. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go. Seriously. I don't intend to change how I comment in AfDs because of what you say. Let it go. LibStar (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Failing BIO is a statement of fact, similar to failing GNG or ACTOR. They don't meet the requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Thanks Oaktree. There was zero harsh intent in saying that an article does not meet notability standards. Same if I said a company article clearly fails WP:CORP, I'm not insulting the company in anyway. LibStar (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:NBIO. A search found no significant coverage in reliable sources. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails in WP:NBIO, nd not have any reliable sources Worldiswide (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got nothing else to add. Appears as open and shut case as could possibly be. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 07:25, 4 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chuu Sitt Han[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR, or WP:NMUSIC. Only a few roles in film, pageants she won are not notable themselves, has not charted as a musician nor did she win the Idol competition. Sources given are all Facebook which is not considered reliable nor significant coverage. ... discospinster _talk 02:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Myanmar. ... discospinster _talk 02:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I moved this article to the draftspace already for this exact reason; no clue why it's back as an article but it shouldn't be.
B3251 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has released multiple singles, won awards at various pageants and seems to have done singles and albums, television and just appears to be a general celebrity in Myanmar. She also seemed to be arrested as part of some celebrity mass arrests in Myanmar, which is here, here and here which would no doubt further her case for notability. This article seems like it be tagged for improvement, not deletion. I do also think we have to be careful of WP:BIAS considering that this is a celeb from a rather unknown country around these parts with limited internet. And as always, if we are nominating people from countries with non-romantic languages, we should make sure to do research on the person their own language, otherwise we will get less results.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have revised the article by incorporating the sources provided by KatoKungLee. I have also made an effort to tone down any promotional and ensure that proper references are included. It is evident that she meets the notability guidelines outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Thanks 149.18.84.132 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review changes to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on seeming to be a local celebrity in Myanmar with coverage from sources. - Indefensible (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has received sufficient coverage from the Burmese media to meet GNG.Thilsebatti (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is one of a typical Burmese popular artist in Myanmar with coverage from sources and she meets the notability guidelines outlines in WP:GNG , WP:BASIC. Aidanag Narak (talk) 11:21, 3 September 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 MPL Philippines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MPL Philippines S12[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article was filled with unreliable sources, like facebook and etc. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Philippines. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not too familiar with this topic, but would these sources count in referring to the league and season in particular? 1 2 3 PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge to MPL Philippines parent article. Too many facebook sources for comfort. Parent article seems to require trimming as well but that is beyond the scope of this AfD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very selectively to MPL Philippines, no need for a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 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!} 02:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greenville Triumph SC head coaches[edit]

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

This article seems unnecessary for such a young club that has only had one head coach so far. I see no reason this very short article shouldn't be merged into the main Greenville Triumph SC article, which is also fairly short. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You have to be kidding me. A list with one entry, when WP:NLIST specifies that the entrieS (plural) on a list must have been discussed as a group in RS to be notable? Flagrant, obvious violation of notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Created by a banned sock puppeteer.— Maile (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. Also, doesn't meet WP:NLIST, as this "list" contains one person. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greenville Triumph as there's nothing wrong with the actual content of this page (which consists of a table with one row), but absolutely should not be a stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T·C 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. There is literally no need for a separate list article with literally one entry -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superfluous. The substantive content, i.e John Harkes was appointed head coach before the team's first season, and as far as we know is still in post, is already in the main article, and the stats haven't been updated since this list was created 4+ years ago. There's nothing to merge. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list with all of one entry, and the club itself has existed for five whole years. Jiminy Christmas. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely pointless. Giant Snowman 16:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emesis Blue (2023)[edit]

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

An animated fanmade film released on YouTube. Article fails GNG and WP:NFILM/WP:NWEB. No references in article, BEFORE found nothing. Tried to draft, but a duplicate declined draft article exists already at Draft:Emesis Blue (2023), so drafting is not an option. // Timothy :: talk 01:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a copy-paste move from a draft created in AfC. The AfC draft was rejected 20 June 2023. Little seems to be changed from the rejected draft, including lack of citations and lack of proof regarding notability. Significa liberdade (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in the unlikely event that the article is kept, it should be moved to Emesis Blue. Wikishovel (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting this to be a complete non-entity, but it is actually all over social media and fandoms etc., just nothing that would come even close to meeting GNG. Given that the film is quite new, better sources might appear at some point, and in that sense draftification could be an option (and would be doable by simply changing the title slightly). However, this seems pointless as a draft already exists, and that is indeed the 'original' (of which this is merely an ill-advised copypaste move), which can sit in the draft space even if/when this copy is deleted. As for deletion rationale, per nom (no references, no sign of notability of any flavour). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this article can be improved, they can do it in the draft. If the draft did not exist, I would vote draftify. Asparagusus (interaction) 13:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with all arguments above given the existence of the draft already. -2pou (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has no independent sources, and so fails both notability and verifiability. Leave the draft alone. The draft was declined, not rejected. If reliable sources are found, the draft can be improved and resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article were kept, a history merge would be necessary because of the copy-paste. It isn't necessary because the copy-paste should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little context + not a single source. —theMainLogan (t•c) 01:33, 4 September 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 05:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judas (manga)[edit]

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

Unsourced and tagged as such since 2009. I have attempted AtD's and all have been reverted with no further changes. The present article objectively fails all notability standards, but it appears the community insists on a full AfD, so here we go. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR--As another editor has noted, there has been a Heymann rewrite on this article which establishes notability and brings it up to WP standard. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this article meets WP:NBOOK with the three reviews listed in the external links section (Comic Book Bin, Sequential Tart, Mania), all of which are from reliable sources per WP:ANIME/RS. The article is poor but deletion is not cleanup. Link20XX (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a review exists in Jason Thompson's Manga: The Complete Guide (page 598 in my digital version), thus giving it four good sources. Link20XX (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those meet WP:RS? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of them. Their reliability was all discussed just for them to be listed at ANIME/RS. Not to mention Manga: The Complete Guide is a published work that has been widely used throughout other articles; its author is also well-noted for his work in the industry. Link20XX (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just completely re-wrote the entire article with sources and a shorter plot summary. Link20XX (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by Link are sufficient to meet NBOOK. Jumpytoo Talk 03:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to reasons above, WP:HEY is achieved, the article is in a much better state thanks to Link20XX and likely would not be nominated at this point. —siro χ o 04:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian exonyms[edit]

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

Meaningless (unreferenced sine 2019) list of Romanian-language placenames all over the world regardless relevance and randomness of selection. Say, why wikipedia must teach that Jordan is called Iordania in Romanian? - Altenmann >talk 01:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely Wikipedia is even right place for this subject. Orientls (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is basically a dictionary //Replayful (talk | contribs) 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced WP:OR. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD was moved to the correct title without creating a redirect. I am correcting incoming links. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:10, 5 September 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 Withdraw. User:Tintor2 again found plenty of scholarly sources about the chracter, which is not seen at mobile glance. Withdrawing. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rintaro Okabe[edit]

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

Article's reception were filled with passing mentions from the game reviews. Zero WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a quick glance, I managed to find four scholars that discuss Okabe's characterization and what is his purpose in the visual novel, focusing on various themes such as time travels and what exactly he can prevent by doing it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even at a glance, I can that there was sigcov before it was nominated with the Crunchyroll article. It concerns me that this AfD may have been nominated without checking for sigcov or doing a BEFORE search, yet suggesting it was done. @Greenish Pickle!: What did you do to verify the lack of notability before nomination? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ughhh, sometimes it doesn't really aopear that much at mobile. I'll take any criticism, but at least I managed to pull it off at Lucario's afd. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:25, 31 August 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.