Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 03	August 05 >

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 Proteus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thaicrucia[edit]

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

The only source to mention this figure is the Clementine Recognitions, as part of its clearly anti-pagan "black catalogue" of Jupiter's "adulteries". Not mentioned in any secondary source, even the most comprehensive encyclopedias such as Smith and Brill's New Pauly, so the article fails WP:GNG. There is also nothing here which isn't already at Proteus. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus, per WP:ATD-R. —siro χ o 00:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reason given.★Trekker (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus, per WP:ATD-R. Thaicrucia seems to appear in "A Catalogue of Virtuous Women. Myth and Mythography in Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4, 19,118-123" as a secondary source, but I don't have access and so cannot say if she is just mentioned there or actually discussed. Daranios (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I apparently stand corrected in my claim that she is not mentioned in any secondary source. Looking at the article in question, though, her only mention is in note 56 on p. 429, which states: Only four names out of thirty-five in the first list (Phoenissa, Thaicrucia, Cotonia, and the second Hippodamia) and one out of seven in the second (Manthea) do not follow the alphabetical arrangement. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Proteus is technically a merge, since it preserves the history of the stub and ensures that editors can check whether there was anything that needed to be changed in the target article. But that's perfectly appropriate, and the same should be done for this and the associated Nympheus. P Aculeius (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 10 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 Owl River (Manitoba). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silcox Creek[edit]

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

~~Both sources are passing mentions of~~ One source is database entry regarding the Creek ~~(among other Canadian bodies of water)~~ and therefore do not demonstrate its notability, and the other source is dead. A quick Google search before this AfD did not turn up new sources that are independent from Wikipedia either. Silcox (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Silcox (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable body of water. Ping me if additional non-database sources are found. –dlthewave ☎ 15:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See these separate but related AfDs
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox station
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox, Manitoba

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Owl River (Manitoba) (which it flows into) per WP:GEONATURAL and the nominator's comments. See also the discussion at the 2 AfDs listed above and, most of all, these satellite images: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Good place to raise a beaver. One of countless creeks and rivers in the wilderness.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Owl River (Manitoba) as WP:ATD; the creek is clearly not notable per WP:GEONATURAL. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:49, 11 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!} 22:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Beasnael[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businesswoman, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for businesspeople. As always, people are not "inherently" notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because they have jobs, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about their work in those jobs to externally validate their significance -- but "has had jobs" is about the only notability claim on offer here, and the referencing is parked almost entirely on bad primary sources that are not support for notability, such as blogs and photo galleries and press releases and staff profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or companies she's been directly affiliated with. And while there is one real newspaper article that looks to be an acceptable source, one of those isn't enough. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have considerably better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Africa, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in independent sources to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article, this personality is notable. I am putting more secondary sources together.
Jwale2 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone please identify the WP:THREE best sources for establishing notability? I would be happy to reconsider my !vote based on additional sources, of course. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom pretty much summarizes this case. Instead of solid claim to notability, there's fluff, like "emerging leader", and CEO of redlinked company. 128.252.212.40 (talk) 18:25, 10 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia Expedition (630)[edit]

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

Yet another typical horribly sourced/cited battle/war article that has a Turkic victory and created by a new user. It's basically a expanded version of the mess that is Turkic invasion of Armenia (628), which conveniently uses the same primary sources (well, not anymore, I just removed the Movses citations) and WP:VER citations and which was deleted based on arguments which fit just as well here [5].

Can't be a coincidence that so many of these horrible "Turkic victory" articles come up, there's probably meat/sockpuppetry involved here, though that's another story. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Armenia, and Turkey. Kpg jhp jm 06:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
”Yet another typical horribly sourced/cited battle/war article that has a Turkic victory and created by a new user.“ Well, i've used more sources than the other Article and they are more reliable. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A new user can't make an article about these things? This article is way more detailed than the Turkic Invasion of Armenia, and i used more reliable sources than that other article. When i searched Turkic invasion of Armenia, i didn't find any results. I think we should delete that article instead of this because the wars' date/year is wrong. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And in that article there are no sources/references about the year/time, also Lev Gümilev is used as a reference, who says the year of the battle is 630. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete- per nom. Archives908 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another article supposedly citing Lev Gumilëv along with other unverifiable "sources". --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ poorly crafted article. Aintabli (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per UndercoverClassicist. Aintabli (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify: AfD needs to judge the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. This expedition definitely happened and has WP:SIGCOV in a number of published sources (a quick WP:BEFORE on Google Books gives at least four references that are more than a passing mention, and military campaigns have a pretty high presumption of notability (per WP:NEVENT, events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact). Given that the topic is notable, the only reason to delete would be a) it's a copyright infringement, BLP violation or so on, and I don't think anyone's saying that, or b) WP:TNT on the grounds that it would be easiest to start from zero, which to me is a really a vote to draftify and fix rather than to delete. Agreed that Gümilev is not a good source, but he's hardly critical to the article: relatively little would change if he were excised altogether. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:09, 2 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!} 23:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or Draftify~~: Let's not run new editors away. It's obvious the editor has done some research to put this together. We are a little too trigger-happy with the "Delete" impulse. I'm going to post a note over at WikiProject Military history. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NEUTRAL - for the time being. — Maile (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is this is not the first time this user has made edits suffering from WP:VER and WP:OR issues [6] [7]. They even openly showed their disregard of our rules [8] --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article quality is not a reason for deletion. I am not familiar with the subject but Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, a 2015 work by Boris Zhivkov (I am not aware of the author but it is published by BRILL so presumably reliable) supports the existence of the expedition on page 61: "In 630, the Khazar (possibly) military commander Chorpan Tarkhan was sent by the Turkic khagan to Armenia" - Dumelow (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The event happened, there are several sources, and there are editors working to improve it. The poor thing is only a few days old. There is no rush to kill it since it's not misleading, unsourced or NN. If it's still awful in a year, renom it and consensus will be easier. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - the article seems valid and has references but needs improvement and clean up. - Indefensible (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A horrible, POV-driven mess of an article. I strongly suspect that it only exists to 'prove' that "The Caucasus was completely under Turkic rule." in the infobox. Otherwise it is a hodgepodge of information and ignores the basic context of these events, i.e. the Byzantine-Persian conflict (it even has the Byzantines as opponents of the Turks, when in fact they were allies), and makes no effort to cover the actual event it purports to detail: it ends in 628, when it claim the event took place in 630. Constantine ✍ 18:28, 11 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 List of films based on television programs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing films based on television series[edit]

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

An RfC on the talk page found no evidence that the list is based on any inclusion criteria or reliable sources. In summary, it is a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This good faith nomination and the related RFC seem to mistake a few things:
1. WP:CALC explains that routine calculations do not count as OR, so I don't see the OR or SYNTH claim.
2. One of the comments in the RFC mentioned that no other list had one of the movies at #1. However, in addition to the CALC note above, lists have always been allowed to be incomplete, and the list does not need to be covered in full elsewhere, per WP:NLIST.
3. The inclusion criteria seems pretty clear as an "X of Y" list, and though NLIST does not require the groupings of "X of Y" list to be covered elsewhere, in this case, "films based on tv shows" is covered in many places.
4. The data is sourced to BoxOfficeMojo, which is generally reliable for such data.

There may be a little cleanup needed on some of the sub-lists lower down, and there may be some referencing needed for the "continuity" column, but overall this is a fine list. —siro χ o 10:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have to do better than The inclusion criteria seems pretty clear. Specifically, WP:LISTCRITERIA mandates that they be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. I put it to you that this is not the case here. If they are, you should be able to spell them out explicitly and point to the sources they are based on.

And respectfully, it seems that you do not quite understand the issues brought up in the RfC, as your counterpoints do little to address them. The WP:OR/WP:SYNTH objections have little-to-nothing to do with WP:CALC in this instance, for one thing. For another, Box Office Mojo is certainly a reliable source for the grosses themselves, but that's not the point of contention here—which Alsee very clearly spelled out in saying Yes I see the existing refs, refs to what are essentially database entries for dollar figures for various movies. But nowhere do I see any refs relevant to the claimed article-subject. I see a ref claiming a gross of $791,115,104 for Mission: Impossible – Fallout, but I see no ref anywhere suggesting that this movie is #1 on this list, or any other list. That is pure original research.

Moreover, while you say that NLIST does not require the groupings of "X of Y" list to be covered elsewhere, in this case, "films based on tv shows" is covered in many places, what's required here isn't sources on that concept but sources on the topic of that subgroup of films compared to each other on the basis of their box office grosses. You seem to be under the impression that as long as a particular grouping of films is covered by sources, it would be acceptable and appropriate for Wikipedia editors to construct a list comparing the grosses of the films included in that set, even if no sources do. That's the part that is WP:Original research.

I'll note that there actually does exist at least one source that covers the overarching topic here: the All Time Worldwide Box Office for Based on TV Movies list at The Numbers (website). But that list does it differently; while the Wikipedia article states that Films such as Demon Slayer - Mugen Train, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Transformers are not included due to being adaptated from other media to television series before being adapted into films., the latter two are in fact included in the list over at The Numbers. And of course if we base our entire list on a single source, we are essentially acting as a mirror, which of course Wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to be.

This list is very obviously the result of a bunch of WP:Original research. The "Peak" column is unsourced and likely unsourceable. The "Based on original TV series with year" column is certainly sourceable, but it is unsourced and was almost certainly not based on sources (and definitely not on sources relevant to the overarching topic) in the first place. The "Continuity" column is pure WP:Original research, and the entire "Top 50 highest grossing films based on television series that are part of the same continuity" table is in turn an absolute mess of the same (as is then obviously the "Highest grossing films based on television series that are not part of the same continuity" table).

It is plain to see that this article, as so many box office lists before it, was inspired by the only such list on Wikipedia that is actually of high quality: List of highest-grossing films (a WP:Featured list). The problem with the proliferation of these lists is that they are created without understanding what it is that makes that list work, and they often just copy the structure without considering whether it is appropriate for the newly-created list—or indeed, considering whether the new list should exist at all. The result is that we have a plethora of poorly maintained, straight-up bad lists with myriad problems including—mainly—sourcing issues. This is, well, churnalism—or I suppose online one would call it content farming. It is the assembly of pure WP:RAWDATA by way of WP:Original research at the whims of Wikipedia editors who have mined box office databases for the data and come up with a new angle from which to slice it more-or-less arbitrarily. It is a scourge. TompaDompa (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolve it in acetone (aka delete) as a blatant unencyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no end to the type of way one could break out subsets of films to make "List of highest-grossing films that satisfy random criterion X". This one is particularly arbitrary and should not stay. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping for the record the participants in Talk:List of highest-grossing films based on television series#RFC for Inclusion criteria (besides myself): Lukewarmbeer, Remagoxer, Betty Logan, Alsee, and Politrukki. I have also left a message at User talk:98.228.137.44 since I don't think it is possible to ping IP users. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of films based on television programs. Just add a column there to show how much money the films make if that's seen as something that needs to be listed. Dream Focus 03:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A good ATD, I'd support this. —siro χ o 03:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a terrible idea in theory, but have you seen the state of that article? It's a complete mess. Seeing as the entries are not films but the television series they are based on, adding grosses is not really feasible without restructuring the list from the ground up. TompaDompa (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, merge the first table to List of films based on television programs. The article is a mish-mash of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE data with borderline notability. Whilst films based on TV shows do tend to be regarded as a "grouping", I think there is only a very weak case to be made for this in relation to box-office analysis. There is a chart at https://www.boxofficemojo.com/genre/sg3839815937, but not much beyond that. If we accept the notability of the topic, that leaves two problems: the first is that Box Office Mojo does not seem to be applying its criteria rigorously (The Addams Family while more famous as a TV show originated from a comic strip is included, while The Lone Ranger more famous as a TV show started out as a radio show and is omitted). So if the list is retained there is an inclusion criteria problem that must be resolved. The second problem is that all the other lists in the article (besides the first) are WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No sources appear to be collating data on which TV-based movie was the highest grossing of the year, or which TV-based film was the highest-grossing prior to Jackass 3D. As TompaDompa states above, the format has been leveraged from the List of highest-grossing films (where the various tables make a lot more sense in terms of reliable source coverage) and then applied indiscriminately. Even if the article is retained, these secondary tables need to be junked, which wouldn't leave much of an article. There is a compromise here: merge the first table into List of films based on television programs and the outstanding issues with the table can be resolved at that article (retaining the option to delete the table if they can't be resolved), and the rest of the article should be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 23:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have move it to the films based on television series page as suggested above when should the page get deleted Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge as its own section i would support to keep it but this list lacks of many movies so it would be better to merge it to the main list Braganza (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge the first table to List of films based on television programs. There seems to be at least a weak basis to include the first list in another list article (if there are rather trivial content disputes, they can be resolved at the target article's talk page). The rest fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR per the analysis by TompaDompa and Betty Logan. I specifically reject the WP:CALC argument – the claim that items on the list are based on "routine calculations".
(Note, TompaDompa mentioned that pinging IP users may be impossible, which is true, but I did not receive TompaDompa's notification either because I have specifically disabled mention notifications. If my attention is required, anyone is free to invite me to a discussion through my user talk page.) Politrukki (talk) 12:23, 11 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radon hexafluoride[edit]

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

Another unreal chemical: the only significant reference I've found is this paper discussing whether there is something interesting in the calculated properties of the molecule. It's not mentioned in hexafluoride. It's hard to imagine what one could do with an chemical of which half of it is already transmuted into a variety of other substances while dumping out large quantities of alpha particles, but at any rate there seems to be nothing of substance to say about this. Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I was strongly in favor of deleting the articles on oxygen trifluoride and oxygen tetrafluoride, but for this one I'm on the fence, because (unlike those molecules) this one does have some theoretical studies behind it (cited in the article). But those sources are primary, and the compound is likely never going to be of any more than theoretical interest, so my "keep" is not very committed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as at least some references discuss it. This is also listed in some databases - not that these show notability though, and the chances are that this will be made one day. Unlike those oxygenfluorides! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With only two weak keeps I'd like to see more discussion and input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 23:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scientific Reports is not a great journal, but further sources did turn up, including one that I'd call secondary, Seppelt (2015). I think this clears the bar for being article-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 5 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!} 22:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Riders[edit]

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

Not good enough coverage on this article yet and fails WP:GNG. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 22:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 22:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. A non-notable cricket team playing in a non-notable tournament. I'm not seeing any GNG related coverage, only notice of the side joining the league. Could be WP:TOOSOON, but I'm not sure it will ever develop enough coverage for a GNG pass. Perhaps a redirect to Rangpur Riders would be an WP:ATD if a section is added to that page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case I don't think a redirect is worthwhile - this is a team of retired people earning some extra money from the TV market. They don't play a senior form of cricket anymore. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even convinced that US Masters T10 League is notable, but this team definitely isn't. WP:NOTINHERITED- a bunch of notable people playing for them doesn't make the team notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet more of this t10 nonsense, but hey, at least it uses 6 ball overs unlike that 16.4 abomination! But yeah, so non-notable team, fails WP:GNG, as Joseph2302 says (and correctly I think), the league article also isn't notable. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 21:07, 10 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 speedy delete. per A7 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Felkers[edit]

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

Doesn't indicate importance (fails WP:N). 64andtim (chat) 22:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 64andtim (chat) 22:16, 4 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snorlax[edit]

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

I feel this one may be particularly controversial as Snorlax is often seen as iconic in the context of the games. However with that said trying to find sources saying anything substantial beyond "It's awesome" and "it eats and sleeps a lot" has proven fruitless, and even the book reference is admittedly pretty weak re-reading it in the context of what's being said. Snorlax is an awesome design, but like a lot of characters suffers from a properly where nothing significant has been said about that to pass notability or SIGCOV. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will admit the article as it currently is has no very little significant coverage mentioned. However, a cursory search did find significant coverage. Polygon, Kotaku, Dot Esports, Vice, Nintendo Life. I also found a scientific paper about Snorlax that I'm not sure is serious, but does exist. This shows the issues with the article are WP:SURMOUNTABLE, and AfD is not cleanup and should be used only when no significant sources exist at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: a lot of those aren't discussing Snorlax, or are only tangentially related to it (the copy article for example is a lot more about the effectiveness of Pokemon Go, I mean it literally diverts to the cops going after a different Pokemon), same with the Pokemon Go paywall article. The scientific papers on Google Scholar on Snorlax's obesity was also noticed but reading through them what exactly do you *cite* here? I mean don't get me wrong, I really would be happy if you proved me wrong in this subject, I'm 100% not being factious here, but what's to even cite for these sources?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer that by asking if they would have gone to catch it if it wasn't Snorlax. It shows Snorlax has some sort of cultural cachet ("Holy crap. Finally... the guys are going to be so jealous."), which is evidence of notability, which is precisely what we're looking for here - evidence that Snorlax is somehow more important than other Pokemon in some way.

I also struggle to see how you would interpret something like the Polygon article as being "only tangentially related" to Snorlax. The entire article is describing a possibly deliberate 20 year gambit to make Snorlax look like it's waking up, in line with its character design. Another one shows how Snorlax was the figurehead of an entire advertising campaign "Project Snorlax". We already have an article for Year of Luigi and this is pretty similar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That first reasoning feels kinda...original research-y? I'm going to be honest with you the fact it immediately jumped to another Pokemon didn't help there. As for the polygon article that's the significant one. With Project Snorlax that's a bit under promotion, and unless you've seen some reaction articles to it I haven't I don't know. I strongly feel these are reaching.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ZX. There is WP:SIGCOV on this article based on WP:BEFORE. The Kotaku and Dot Esports articles definitely work, though they should be placed in the article. Conyo14 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Going to quickly point out the subject of the Kotaku article mentioning the developer Snorlax is based on is already covered by two sources in the article itself, and does not offer any new commentary towards the matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... and this means, what? Repetitive sourcing counts towards notability--which is in question here, correct?--even if it doesn't add new facts to be V'ed. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a secondary source citing simply who the character was based on. That's it. How does that demonstrate notability, @Jclemens:.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered this in my keep !vote below, but let's turn the question around: Where in the notability guidelines does it say that the subject of independent, non-trivial, reliable sourcing can undermine a source's use for notability? I'd be genuinely shocked if you found it anywhere outside of maybe a user-space essay, because I'm relatively certain that's not actually a thing. And, of course, once you've been shown to be playing fast and loose interpreting guidelines in such a weirdly inaccurate interpretation favorable to your desired outcome... no amount of badgering helps. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are definitely sources to work with regarding the article.

I found, for instance, this Journal of Interdisciplinary Science Topics, Volume 5 - Google Books This goes into scientific coverage on Snorlax's weight and BMI.

An Introduction to Language (w/ MLA9E Updates) - Google Books This book uses Snorlax as an example of language and syntax, though I can see this one being iffy.

There's also, for instance, this source about police officers going after a Snorlax in Pokemon GO instead of going after a burglar. LAPD officers fired for catching a Snorlax instead of a burglar denied appeal - The Verge

Pokémon-inspired Las Vegas street names feature Jigglypuff Place, Snorlax Lane | Eurogamer.net Snorlax was a street name in this part of Las Vegas (Alongside many others, but it definitely shows notability)

There's also this thing called Project Snorlax which The Pokemon Company launched. While not showing real world impact, this can be used to improve coverage. The Pokemon Company launches new 'Project Snorlax' Twitter account | Shacknews

Pokemon Go trainers call for “favorite” Snorlax event to return - Dexerto There's commentary on players calling for an event dedicated to Snorlax to return, which shows significant interest in the character.

And this is via a brief search. Combined with what @ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ found, I'd say this is more than enough to justify the article being kept around. I haven't even completed my search and I already found all of this.

I do feel this should've been a Merge Discussion with List of Generation I Pokemon, as is currently the case with the ongoing Lugia and Wooloo discussions, but in any case, this article is a definite keep. Unlike Lugia, there are actually a lot of genuinely viable and notable sources to work with that go in depth on the character or demonstrate significant notability. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's have a source analysis then:

The first is a scientific study saying humans with a BMI akin to Snoralx's would leave an unhealthy lifestyle. Again, how does one properly cite that? Even Zx noted above it might be a weird one and it's the strongest one offered here.
The book about language is also a bit iffy and doesn't offer anything that can be cited...
The second is a statement on the success of Pokemon go, and Snorlax's presence in the article could easily be swapped for any other rare Pokemon in Pokemon Go. There's no commentary saying Snorlax in particular was highly popular enough that they would go after it, and they quickly went after a Togetic next, followed by them reasoning that Pokemon Go could be seen as a social event.
The Street holds the same relevance as Jigglypuff and Charmender being mentioned in there: reading the article, the names are not being chosen because of a particular significance for the pokemon, but the franchise's weight and running out of street names.
Project Snorlax in and of itself is promotion, and much like with Year of Luigi, gives notability to the character itself when the character is being *discussed in the context therein*. Thus far the most that has arisen from it is Pokemon Sleep, which didn't give additional commentary towards Snorlax.
Dexerto could be argued more about Pokemon Go again, but a bigger problem is the website itself is marked flat out unreliable via WP:VG/S.

@Pokelego999: That's the problem with all these sources. Snorlax is *mentioned* a lot, but not actually *discussed*, and most of them are about other subjects with only the Pokemon being mentioned. Also I will point out that many of those sources were already mentioned by Zx and argued about above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I seem to have missed that he already mentioned the police incident as well as some of the Project Snorlax stuff. In any case, though, it seems relatively simple to cite the sources in the reception section. For instance, you could say something like "Frances Tennant, writing for the book "Journal of Interdisciplinary Science Topics, Volume 5," analyzed Snorlax's intake and calculated its total body mass index while analyzing its unhealthy lifestyle." While this is whipped up relatively quickly and can be written way better than I did it, it's not impossible to utilize, as it does display significant analysis and coverage of the subject. A brief reference to Snorlax's usage in the language book can also be added, as while you can't really quote it too effectively, it is something to include as a reference. Perhaps a brief line such as "Snorlax was utilized in an analysis of syntax in "An Introduction To Language..." As for the street source, while yes, it is one of many Pokemon used here, the fact it was chosen out of the current 1000+ species in existence is demonstrative of significant notability from the source material. While it's not entirely going to make or break the article, it demonstrates that Snorlax is notable enough and distinct enough as a Pokemon of the series that it was selected for something like this.

As for Project Snorlax, I'm not saying that right now it deserves a reference in the reception section, but it definitely helps in expansion of the article. Being part of a whole promotional wave increases coverage on the subject.

Thanks for pointing out the Dexerto source, I was unaware of the fact it couldn't be used. In any case, though, I did do another check for sources and found these.

Tom Brady Makes Snorlax Pokemon Card with His Huge Sideline Coat | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report

While I'm uncertain how good of a source the site is, this one does show a famous celebrity making reference to Snorlax, which does demonstrate notability.

Snorlax Goes All Out Week to Promote Pokemon Sleep (clutchpoints.com)

This article also provides some commentary on Snorlax and Project Snorlax.

P4_4 Snorlax used Body Slam | Yeomans | Physics Special Topics (le.ac.uk) Also found this paper, which analyzes Snorlax's power in attacking.Occupy_Rhetorical_Citizenship_An_Analysis_of_Civic_Action_through_Images_and_Video_of_the_UC_Davis_Pepper_Spraying-libre.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

Also found this paper discussing it in depth as an allegory and how it can be used to explain complicated situations to children.

There were a few other potential Scholar hits but I couldn't access them thanks to paywalls, so I'm unsure on if they discuss Snorlax in depth or not. In any case, there definitely is significant coverage on the subject in this field.

I have to disagree a bit in the sense that Snorlax isn't just mentioned a lot. Quite a few of these sources are mentioning it in some depth, and the fact it was referenced in several in depth analysis does say a lot. I'm not saying it's Pikachu in terms of sourcing, but Snorlax has a lot going for it. There is generally a lot of independent, notable coverage on it. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not meaning offense Pokelego999, but a lot of these sources just aren't saying anything that can be cited for notability.

The Tom Brady coat thing is more "he wore a coat that looked liked Snorlax". There's nothing said about the character like that, it's barely trivia.
Second source is Project Snorlax descriptions and not even commentary, worth mentioning in the article yes but doesn't help the notability problem.
The physics paper is in line with the other paper, where you can mention briefly scientific studies were done about aspects of them, so there is that.
This paper has potential but it's not published, which is a roadblock.
Guessing the allegory is probably already cited in the article from the sounds of it.

Ultimately the main problem is yes, you're going to find a LOT of sources mentioning him. But the lack of discussion is the problem, there's nothing discussed that satisfies notability. Try and sit down and cite statements from these sources you're throwing out here; see what you're able to come up with without having to reach into OR territory.

Also going to add that just because a character has been referenced in something such as a street name in the above article, if there's no additional commentary it doesn't really equate to notability. At most it's worth a blurb, but if we're going by the death by 1000 cuts approach it can be really rough in the long term and could be seen as WP:REFBOMBING.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually realize my fourth source wasn't published. It came up via Scholar so I just assumed it was. The allegory to my knowledge is not currently cited in the article, and is separate from the "Make Believe Worlds" citation. I definitely see your REFBOMBING concern via the Brady source, but I still wished to bring it up in any case. A significant celebrity made use of the character, which demonstrates the notability of said character. The fact that the comparison was drawn between Brady and Snorlax shows the character is recognizable just from visuals alone.

In any case, there really isn't a notability problem. I've seen Wikipedia articles be kept around while having way less sources to work with. The fact we have several studies and pieces of scientific analysis of and/or utilizing Snorlax basically shows notability in and of itself, and the fact we have several other articles describing it in depth also helps demonstrate notability. We have coverage, impact, analysis, and even some developmental information. I'd say that's more than enough to establish Snorlax as a notable character in the grand scheme of things. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eurogamer and Kotaku sources are independent, non-trivial RSes: the former shows real world impact, the latter shows origin, and neither type of coverage is routinely present for non-notable topics. That is, not only are these two sources sufficient of themselves, but they are a strong indicator that the topic is truly notable, despite the nom's curiously persistent, and non-policy-based, complaints about certain sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I think it's among the weakest articles about Pokemon species at the moment, but there is something at least. That said, we do need to be careful not to simply cite articles based on whether Snorlax is merely mentioned. For example, the police article, Snorlax is completely tangential. You can argue that Snorlax is a vital aspect, but that's original research. The article itself needs to assert that to be the case. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The overwhelming majority of Pokémon articles are not going to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; there are over one thousand Pokémon now and most aren't going to be notable, even if they are one of the 151 of the first generation Pokémon (which is reflected in how many entries at List of generation I Pokémon currently have articles). However there are of course exceptions to that generalization, and I have to agree with the assessment and sources of zxcvbnm that WP:GNG is met here. It's not the cultural juggernaut that Pikachu is, but there's enough there to fall just enough into the "notable" side of WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The deletion argument has been reduced to something like: "although Snorlax is independently covered in an enormous number of independent reliable sources, it is not covered in-depth in any independent reliable sources." I think that's been effectively responded to above. When Target is full of pillows of a character and people are naming streets after it, it's notable, and people should be able to turn to Wikipedia to understand what it is. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Damn, I never thought I'd see the day when Snorlax of all things is nominated for deletion, and yet where we are. Deletionism gone wild? A significant amount of sourcing exists, as a WP:VG/RS custom search shows. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute the notion of this being deletionism gone wild; Snorlax is one of the weakest articles about a Pokémon species that currently exists, I would say, even with the sources not yet included in the article. It's held together by spit and dreams. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's snowing Keep Per everyone above Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 14:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to establish notability for the character. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Snorlax is a significant character in Pokémon and there are enough sources to establish notability. 1keyhole (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to his notability and that the page already has a reception/analysis section, meaning it's not all in-universe. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:34, 11 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!} 22:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aap Beeti (TV series)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (television). Maybe more sources can help, but I'm not too sure about that. Losipov (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Losipov (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:44, 10 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian mystery fires (2022–present)[edit]

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

The article is a clear case of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL. There is no single, reliable source that gathers all the fire cases as elements of the same phenomenon. It's nothing more than speculation to claim that they are all connected or the results of some sort of sabotage effort. Wikipedia isn't the place to publish such lists. Marcelus (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Marcelus (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but prune. I have previously attempted to reduce the list, with some pushback. There are way too many fires on the list which are just fires, where the source does not link them to a wider pattern. But there is reliable sourcing for there being a pattern. I’d be open to dropping the list entirely and just keep the prose element of the article, which has relatively decent sourcing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some data, but change. It has certainly turned into a list of "all fires". I do not like the current name. If there are at least 10 fires believed to be sabotage, then turn this into a page along the lines of Rail war in Russia (2022–present) and rename to something like Sabotage in Russia (2022–present), it will shrink to a meaningful article. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a list disguised as an article - and like the above, there is decent sourcing talking about the fires. Furthermore, there are sources that link several fires together in the article, like this: so I do not think the list should be removed, however unlinked fires that are not mentioned as a 'mystery' fire in sources should definitely be removed. — Karnataka ^talk 21:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barnards.tar.gz, @Karnataka, @Ânes-pur-sàng: There are source talking about the fires, sure, several of them are linked together, sure. But is there any reliable source that says that these fires are examples of some wider sabotage action? No. It's pure speculation, no place for it on Wiki. There can be an article about sabotage in Russia during the recent war (although at this point it would most likely be a fork), there can exist articles about any of the mentioned fires if they are significant enough, but list like this is a pure crystal ball. Marcelus (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is indeed media linking fires together and speculating about their causes and increase since Feb 22. Just one example here: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-fire-moscow-roscosmos-weapons-1780987

It is a phenomenon that is noted and must remain part of wikipedia. I'd resist any editing right now (admit there are issues) there is valuable information that may be verified, or not, in future years. Thelisteninghand (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I started the article. I'm 100% ok with fires of known origin being removed from this list, but fires of unknown origin with references ought to remain. I respectfully deny that WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL apply here, because every single fire or explosion in this list is (and is to be) referenced. These are fires that are of mysterious origin, and there has been reliable, referenced speculation that some are due to some kind of sabotage (for example: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220508-is-ukraine-conducting-a-sabotage-campaign-inside-russia-1). Such verifiable speculation is not made by the Wikipedia community (in which case WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL would apply), it is made by reliable outlets and is therefore notable and should be part of this article. Should sabotage be officially noted for any specific fire, it should be removed from this list. As well, should some other speculation be made as to the cause of these fires in a serious news source it should be added to the article. Victor Grigas (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I don’t like the term “arson” being used to describe an act of war. It’s suggests criminal intent, when the facilities are in fact, legitimate targets during wartime. However, these acts will have lasting notability. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:39, 10 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!} 20:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chester International School[edit]

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:NSCHOOL. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails NSCHOOL and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:39, 11 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. This will allow article restoration should reliable sources demonstrating SIGCOV be located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kivel[edit]

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

No sources containing significant coverage within the article, and I cannot find any myself. Sources within the article are two of the subject's own websites and listings in an encylopaedia and directory. Does not meet WP:GNG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Discrimination, and Judaism. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: barring me missing something, I'm finding sources that attribute some notable ideas to him. See NPR and the study they reference. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: These seem to be passing mentions to me, and are not about the author themselves, rather his ideas/concepts and the Oakland Men's Project, suggesting to me an article on the author himself still wouldn't pass WP:BIO. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 10:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, failed to find WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to the sources indicated above there is also a decent amount of reviews and coverage of Kivel's first book. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then it may be more appropriate to create a page on said book - I cannot find enough significant coverage of the author himself or his ideas/concepts to pass WP:NAUTHOR pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is why most people, including me, are still on the fence. We see indications of importance and exchange these. Not yet proof of GNG. Barren proof of the GNG or NAUTHOR these observations would become eventually deletes. Please allow everyone their due dillegence and the positive exchange of observations. gidonb (talk) 14:20, 9 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 Furman University#Campus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furman University Asian Garden[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Three sources, all routine coverage. Should possibly merge some details into the main article, Furman University. glman (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Furman University#Campus, not independently notable enough for separate coverage. - Indefensible (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Furman University#Campus per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have gone ahead and merged content into Furman University under "Campus". glman (talk) 17:49, 11 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 Speedy Delete‎. Speedily deleted under G4 by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jabhat Ansar Al Sham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted with consensus, but now re-created. Does not meet WP:GNG and does not meet the styleguide. No sources. Qcne (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: and salt. CSD G4. // Timothy :: talk 18:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G4. User Libya345433 has also received a vandalism warning for this and other continuing unsourced edits after support and guidance about creating and editing Wikipedia articles. Significa liberdade (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note I've deleted the recreation per WP:CSD#G4. They had just cut and pasted in the previous content, leaving a chunk of it out, leading to an even more incomprehensible article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:23, 4 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Let'srun (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Buehning Jr.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Handball, Olympics, and New Jersey. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's significant coverage (SPORTBASIC) here (p2), plus lesser coverage here here here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding. Was searching by his full name, which is why I was unable to find anything. I'll withdraw this one now. Let'srun (talk) 18:17, 4 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!} 17:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Hits (Westwood One)[edit]

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

Survived PROD a decade ago but all I can find is press releases about/listings of networks carrying it, nothing about the channel itself. A redirect to Westwood_One#Music_and_entertainment_programming doesn't make sense or appear due as it's not a particularly noteworthy channel. Also per this? We're old! Star Mississippi 17:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Star Mississippi 17:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some discussions of the company found, nothing for this channel. Appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough here to justify a standalone article for this. Agree with nom in whole User:Let'srun 03:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Despite this channel's longevity, there still isn't enough notability established for it.TH1980 (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no citations and I could not come up with anything in Google. Royal88888 (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 18:39, 7 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding of notability. I have blocked the nominator for general competence issues. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5. Liga[edit]

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

not notable Michael H (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovakia. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article can be expanded with information in https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/5._liga and possibly the FIFA or league sites. Please do WP:BEFORE before you nominate an article for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the slovak article is just a list of leagues and their clubs in addition to the enwiki Michael H (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain - nominator has not given any explanation of why it is non-notable, and there is clearly sourcing out there. At least it should be a redirect to Football in Slovakia. Giant Snowman 10:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no reason for that redirect, and i cant say why its not notable, because that means there are NO sources of notability, the links are just competition results and draws etc. from their websites, that doesnt warrant notability Michael H (talk) 10:18, 5 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding of notability. I have blocked the nominator for general competence issues. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. Liga (Slovakia)[edit]

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

Not notable Michael H (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is likely notable as the fourth tier in a European footballing country, even just as a stub. Just need to source it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it very unlikely notable, its not even a proffesional league...there should be some sources of notability, when they are not its mostly likely not notable Michael H (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sources doesnt equal notability evidence Michael H (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works, if the league's been significantly covered in secondary sources we can have an article on it. Not every league is notable but fourth-tier leagues generally are covered. SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
even secondary sources have to notable a bit i think Michael H (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:SIGCOV Michael H (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do any sort of WP:BEFORE search before you nominated? For instance [9] is a portal for news about the 4. liga for Bratislava, this is a season preview article, [10] is a season preview article from last year - all leagues have season preview articles, showing this passes WP:GNG and needs content creation. I'd recommend not sending any more articles to AfD until you're comfortable with the process. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 is a 3 years inactive website which doesnt provide current notability, second is a site that covers all leagues in slovakia but that articles are likely not really popular outside the ''4th league community'' Michael H (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity doesn't matter, all that matters is that there are enough sources for us to write a neutral and verifiable encyclopaedia article, which is clearly the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
popularity matters when deciding whenever it is notable enough for a wikipedia article and whenever these sources are reliable Michael H (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the text and references in the corresponding Slovakian Wikipedia article at https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/4._liga Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nothing there is an evidence of notability Michael H (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovakia. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain - nominator has not given any explanation of why it is non-notable, and there is clearly sourcing out there. At least it should be a redirect to Football in Slovakia. Giant Snowman 10:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no reason for that redirect, and i cant say why its not notable, because that means there are NO sources of notability, the links are just competition results and draws etc. from their websites, that doesnt warrant notability Michael H (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources on original Slovak article. They just need carrying over to the English one and marking as being in the Slovak language. Easy enough job, no need for deletion. Besides, a translation of some of the information on the Slovak article would bulk it
up a bit, it's all verifiable and notable. Greeny908 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any sources of notability? Michael H (talk) 23:56, 7 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!} 17:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged bin Laden sightings in the United States[edit]

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

No serious coverage in reliable sources, unless we count the likes of Snopes articles debunking the obvious fabrications ([11]). Does not meet WP:GNG. No coverage of sightings inside the US at Manhunt for Osama bin Laden, so that's not a suitable redirect target. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Terrorism, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:RUMOR "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions." — Maile (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Unmitigated, unencyclopaedic garbage. AlanS^talk 06:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:COATRACK, and all of the above. 2601:204:C901:B740:4822:EB19:AD81:40F2 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Parham wiki (talk) 18:31, 9 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Hamza[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG criteria, most likely WP:TOOSOON after only two matches in a professional football. The only reference is a match report from the player's club. FromCzech (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not eligible for Wikipedia (at least now). --BoraVoro (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://cnn.iprima.cz/porady/interview/02032021-jiri-hamza

I found one source, but I don't know if it counts. I don't know what Wikipedia's stance is on TV interviews, nor if the interview has much relevance to documenting Jiří Hamza himself (because I don't speak Czech). Greeny908 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the interview is not the footballer, but the president of the Czech Biathlon Union with the same name. FromCzech (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:TOOSOON - he made his professional debut this season, so by the winter break the sourcing situation could be different. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftiy per TOOSOON.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player became member of Czech Republic U-19 team and is highly likely that his starts and media interest will increase. Reference was attached. Pospeak (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL - if he becomes notable later in his career then we can recreate the article but I see no reason to have an article on someone who might gain coverage later. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - currently doesn't pass GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above, and possibly expand later on if the subject becomes notable. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:32, 11 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!} 17:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwani Jain[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. A two-time candidate for office in Maryland that has never held office. Many of the sources on the page are either self-published sources (including Jain's Medium, Twitter, and YouTube accounts, or local blogs about Maryland politics run by a single person) or coverage from his unsuccessful run for governor in 2022. Y2hyaXM (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Y2hyaXM (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the nom. There is sufficient credibility in relation to the article and sources that are beyond the scope of a basic search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxisandAlloys (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I do understand where you both come from, I would argue that Jain's campaign was unique under the categorization of his age. I think this highlight has not been made to a satisfactory extent so I will work on that.

In terms of sources, I think that was primarily just because of the ease of access that comes with Google searching, there are large numbers of articles and other pieces of media that do cover Jain, but because the campaign is over, his personal accounts now are showcased first. Let me incorporate some of those pieces into the page and see if we can come to a consensus after that. Piggo2020 (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they lost — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while a candidate gets into Wikipedia only if either (a) he has some other claim of notability that would already have gotten him an article on those other grounds anyway, or (b) the article can show a credible reason why his candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies. But this isn't really demonstrating either of those things, and is based too heavily on primary sources, which aren't support for notability at all, and run of the mill campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election always gets, which don't constitute evidence that he's more special than all of the other candidates who also got similar coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom in whole. Nothing here to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Running for office does not lend to inherent notability. User:Let'srun 15:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to prove WP:NPOL & WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Kind regards --Âvîrâm7^(talk) 13:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable failed politician, fails WP:NPOL/WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 10 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon toys[edit]

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

Barely any sources, full of WP:CRUFT. Overly broad. Gak may be able to be spun off. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Toys. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The biggest product is Gak and based on a WP:BEFORE search, there are some articles on it, but the rest of the toys I cannot find reliable sources on. This article can probably be worked on more. Conyo14 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If kept, the article should probably be moved to List of Nickelodeon toys. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Conyo14 (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Is there such a !vote as Listify? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:00, 7 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!} 20:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bayanni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Repeatedly deleted article on a Nigerian singer, sourced exclusively to "allcelebs"-style content farms. Several versions of this article have been speedy deleted at different titles over the past year, but we have never actually had an affirmative consensus to delete so G4 is not available.

The first version of the article was posted on August 25, 2022, on the same day that two similar biographies were posted on the websites naijabiography.com and cityceleb.com (I've also found basically the same press release on a number of other websites also posted on that date). That date also happens to be the day after they released their self-titled EP. The bio here was deleted as a copyvio, and so was a similar version posted a few months later (kudos to Diannaa for finding that version). The current article was also tagged for G12 deletion by Actualcpscm. Those two articles were also created by accounts which are now blocked for sockpuppetry. I have merged all the versions we could find into this page, but I'll list the others I know of below.

I looked into the copyvio and found the alignment of dates around August 25, but since I can't tell for certain which version was posted first, I can't say for certain that this is not a reverse copyvio, and I declined on that basis.

The singer is probably not notable. I found two more in-depth writeups on dailypost.ng and okayafrica.com, both written this year (i.e. not contemporaneous with the singer's EP release), however I don't think this is enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO, at least WP:NOTJUSTYET. And since the article is still largely similar to the original content farm version, it will need to be blown up and started over anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other titles I'm aware of: Bayanni (singer), Bayanni (Nigerian singer), Bayanni (Zhenoboy), Draft:Bayanni, Draft:Bayanni (singer). If anyone knows how to do a lookup of deleted titles, please ping me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Article about him being a ManU fan [12], which I suppose is a RS. Rest still seems promo. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant just because it is a reliable source. ManU has millions of other fans too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, it‘s written by himself about himself. As an autobiographical piece, it‘s not independent, no matter how reliable the publisher may be. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. Notability is very borderline at best, but I would also say that this person isn‘t notable just yet. In either case, a WP:TNT delete is warranted because of the unclear copyright situation. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and make it stick. The singer just hasn't been noticed by any reliable media, not even among the notoriously gossipy Nigerian music press. His management's relentless online promotional strategy may bring dividends someday, but for now keep Wikipedia out of it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 5 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Grayson[edit]

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

Appears to be a run of the mill high level but non-notable business executive who was also an ambassador-designate. He was nominated by Trump to serve as ambassador to Estonia, but never took office. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Estonia. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just for getting designated as the appointee to a job they never actually held — and, in fact, even people who have actually served as ambassadors still aren't deemed "inherently" notable for that in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage analyzing the impact of their work in that role, so an appointee who never actually held the role can hardly be more notable. But this is based almost entirely on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all — and it isn't even really trying to document that he had any preexisting notability in business before being appointed to a diplomatic role he never actually assumed, either. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable career that fails WP:BIO. As Bearcat correctly states, ambassadors are not inherently notable, being a designate even less so. LibStar (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify so the article is not entirely deleted and can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bearcat. Fails WP:BIO. Appointed, never served, and apart from that, his previous endeavors don't show any sort of notability. ExRat (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meeting Bio. Okoslavia (talk) 22:05, 9 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Fix[edit]

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

Don't really know how to search for sources/notability for a publication like this so take this with a grain of sand, but what I could manage turned up nothing. A more thorough BEFORE would be helpful, but for now I see an article with zero sources. I wouldn't be surprised if that turns around though. But if it doesn't, then delete (I don't see any appropriate redirect targets but would be willing to support if one turns up). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Music. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find coverage in any reliable sources. LittlePuppers (talk) 05:02, 7 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ IncompA 11:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary McQueen[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, and after looking for more sources outside of the one, I was unable to find any. It should be noted that this one citation is straight from the New Zealand government. IncompA 09:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand. IncompA 09:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close I suggest you withdraw this nomination, IncompA. Dozens of AfDs have found, without fail, that people with a DNZB entry are indeed notable. They did include a single-digit number of "representative" bios in their collection as explained at Dictionary of New Zealand Biography#Representative entries, but this is not one of them. Schwede 66 09:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, interesting. Could you maybe direct me to some of these past AfDs? I'd like to see the reasoning as to why people with a DNZB entry are notable. I'm not on the hook quite yet. IncompA 09:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stuartyeates wrote a few thousand of those DNZ bios about 10 years ago. Just look through his talk page archives; he gets a notification every time one gets put up for AfD. You'll find dozens of those notifications and as I say, they have all been kept. Schwede 66 10:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. So they are notable simply because of the biography. Welp, I suppose I SHOULD shut this one down after all. IncompA 11:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are two book-length source with significant coverage listed in the 'Links and sources' of her biography. Since McQueen was not involved in the New Zealand Government, the DNZB is an independent source. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My research shows a couple mentions of her in books and scholarly sources. I'm not entirely sure it's WP:SIGCOV, but my sense is this article can be adopted and expanded. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 4 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Charara[edit]

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

One mention on government website, and other sources doesnt prove the WP:GNG and also lacks the enough references.

Any experience user says If I am wrong, I’m okay to withdraw. Autograph (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Psychology, and United Kingdom. Autograph (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, what's used in the article seems mostly primary. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Morocco. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 5 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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep given the sources Cunard has found. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Qiang[edit]

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

Only ever played in the minors, and career seems to have stalled after becoming a free agent in 2020. I can't see that there's enough coverage to justify a GNG pass (usual caveat: I don't speak Chinese and can't search it except through GTranslate). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and China. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article fails WP:GNG and is a case of WP:INVALIDBIO; he is only known because he's the first Tibetan to be signed to the MLB. IncompA 08:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IncompA, not to argue with someone supporting my position, but this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, or I'd have tagged it as such. WP:INVALIDBIO also doesn't apply, as the only points in that section are about people known for their relationship to someone else, or people only notable for number of Google hits. "First X to do Y" isn't on there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. I'm new to all of this AfD stuff and as such I'm not entirely aware of every term. IncompA 09:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and arguably WP:BLP1E. Not a speedy delete in the slightest, though. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources cited in the article, I'm seeing lots of coverage in Chinese-language sources. I found these with a quick search: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mx. Granger, maybe you're not familiar with the recent changes to WP:NSPORT, which require significant coverage in compliance with the GNG. Generally it's expected that sources should be more in-depth than routine announcements of players being signed or traded, and that there should be at least some indication of sustained coverage. There does not appear to be enough such coverage to justify him having an article. The SCMP article already cited is barely about him, mentioning him merely as an example of a Chinese player in the minors. The other two citations in the article are stats databases, which aren't considered SIGCOV.
As for the sources you linked:
1. Signing announcements are often considered WP:ROUTINE; this one is quite short
2. Mentions him only to say that he is one of 7 Chinese players signed to the MLB by one development centre
3. Another routine signing announcement, shorter than the last, doesn't lend much extra to claim of notability
4. Another signing announcement; this one has slightly better coverage than the last two, and I would take it as significant
5. Another signing announcement in line with the first two
6. Fluff report about training in a youth newspaper, I'm not convinced
7. Another signing announcement in line with the first two - I suspect they're based on a press release as they all have very close to the same content/wording
8. Like source 2, only mentions him trivially
9. Yet another signing announcement
10. I can't access the sports.qq link, not sure why
11. Same signing announcement as 9 but on a different website
12. Trivial mention in the context of another dude getting signed from his development centre
13. The exact same signing announcement as the first one
So basically, a raft of short, routine , press-release-based signing announcements, and a few trivial mentions. What we need is coverage of him as a player - his achievements, his failures, his life. But none of that exists, because he isn't notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the subject appears to meet GNG, as he has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rather than just brief signing announcements, several of the sources I linked have multiple paragraphs of information about Qiang's life and career. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Zhao, Meng 赵萌 (2023-06-28). "棒球"追梦少年"与中国体彩的故事强巴仁增：我感受到了支持和关爱" [Baseball "dream chasing boy" and the story of China Sports Lottery. Justin Qiang: I feel support and love]. China Sports Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The article notes: "强巴仁增是一名中国棒球运动员，他有着1.83米的身高，皮肤黝黑、身体健壮，笑起来非常腼腆。2017年他与MLB美国职棒大联盟波士顿红袜队正式签约，成为中国首位与美国职业俱乐部签约的藏族棒球运动员，也被媒体称为中国棒球的“追梦少年”。出生在西藏自治区墨竹工卡县一户工薪家庭的强巴仁增从小跟着爷爷奶奶长大， 2007年的春天，他来到了北京光爱学校念书，在这里，第一次遇到了公益体彩。"
  From Google Translate: "Justin Qiang is a Chinese baseball player. He is 1.83 meters tall, has dark skin and a strong body. He smiles very shyly. In 2017, he officially signed with the MLB Boston Red Sox and became the first Tibetan baseball player in China to sign with an American professional club. He was also called the "dream chasing boy" of Chinese baseball by the media. Justin Qiang, who was born in a working family in Mezhugongka County, Tibet Autonomous Region, grew up with his grandparents. In the spring of 2007, he came to Beijing Guangai School to study. Here, he encountered charity sports lottery for the first time."
2. Abraham, Peter (2017-09-21). "Red Sox first MLB team to sign player from Tibet". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The article notes: "Qiang Ba is the first player from Tibet signed by a major league team and started catching earlier this season. He is a former pitcher and shortstop. ... Qiang Ba is a product of Major League Baseball’s academy in Nanjing, China. He also has a background as an actor, having appeared on the Chinese baseball-themed drama “Boyhood.” ... Qiang Ba was not considered a prominent prospect internationally but does represent the team’s first step into the potentially deep Chinese prospect pool. But he does have athleticism and good size at 6 feet 1 inch, 180 pounds."
3. Yang, Xinwei 杨心伟 (2017-07-13). Yan, Yujie 严玉洁; Yu, 于熙 (eds.). "MLB棒球发展中心球员强巴仁增正式签约波士顿红袜队" [MLB Baseball Development Center player Justin Qiang officially signs with Boston Red Sox]. China Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The article notes: "2001年，强巴仁增出生在西藏自治区墨竹工卡县的一户工薪阶层家里。2007年11月，强巴仁增加入北京大成学校棒球队，正式开始学习棒球。在遇到大成学校的李伟教练之前，强巴仁增坦言并不知棒球所为何物，但他仅用了三年时间就开始展现自己过人的棒球天赋。2010年7月第28届世界少年软式棒球锦标赛決賽在日本江户川举行，经过延长局的激烈争夺，中国队战胜中华台北队，夺得第28届世界少年软式棒球锦标赛冠军。作为二垒手出场的强巴仁增完成了最后一个出局数，赛后入选该届世锦赛“最佳阵容”。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2001, Justin Qiang was born in a working-class family in Mazhugongka County, Tibet Autonomous Region. In November 2007, Justin Qiang joined the baseball team of Beijing Dacheng School and officially started learning baseball. Before meeting coach Li Wei of Dacheng School, Justin Qiang admitted that he did not know what baseball was, but it only took him three years to show his extraordinary baseball talent. In July 2010, the final of the 28th World Junior Softball Championship was held in Edogawa, Japan. After a fierce competition in the extended round, the Chinese team defeated the Chinese Taipei team and won the championship of the 28th World Junior Softball Championship. Justin Qiang, who played as a second baseman, completed the last outs and was selected as the "best team" of the World Championships after the game."
4. Tobin, Meaghan (2018-09-09). "Why is baseball a hit in Japan, but striking out in China? Hint: it's to do with the PLA and Cultural Revolution". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-10-20. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The article notes: "But the catcher is the backbone, setting the pace, anchoring and orchestrating the team – and this is the role Justin could someday play. A powerful left-handed hitter, he is 17 years old, six feet tall and 186 pounds, ideally suited to baseball. Last fall, after some scouts saw him behind the plate, Justin achieved the nearly impossible – he was signed by the Boston Red Sox as a player in their Gulf Coast League, US$10,000 bonus in hand, becoming the first player from Tibet ever signed by Major League Baseball (MLB) in the United States."
5. Yang, Xinwei (2017-07-19). "Justin time: BoSox tap Chinese talent". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The article notes: "Ten years ago, the Tibetan teenager had no clue about the game. But earlier this month, the 6-foot, 185-pound catcher signed a contract with the Boston Red Sox. ... Born to a working-class family in Tibet's Maizhokunggar county in 2001, Qiangbarenzeng joined the Beijing Dacheng School baseball team under coach Li Wei at age 6. Three years later he helped Team China beat Chinese Taipei to win a tournament in Japan and was one of six Chinese selected for the All-Star team. ... After their initial assessment, Red Sox scout Louie Lin and Eddie Romero, Boston's former international scouting director and now assistant general manager, suggested Qiangbarenzeng could be a good catcher, prompting the switch."
6. Yang, Chengchen 杨程晨 (2017-07-13). "中国16岁藏族球员与美国职棒球队签约" [Chinese 16-year-old Tibetan player signs with MLB team] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. China News Service. Archived from the original on 2023-08-06. Retrieved 2023-08-06.
  The article notes: "强巴仁增2001年出生在西藏自治区墨竹工卡县。2007年11月加入北京大成学校棒球队，开始学习棒球。2010年7月举行的第28届世界少年软式棒球锦标赛，中国队夺得冠军，强巴仁增入选该项赛事最佳阵容。2015年，他通过考核被MLB南京棒球发展中心录取。"
  From GOogle Translate: "Jampa Rinzeng was born in Medzhugongka County, Tibet Autonomous Region in 2001. In November 2007, he joined the baseball team of Beijing Dacheng School and began to learn baseball. In the 28th World Junior Softball Championship held in July 2010, the Chinese team won the championship, and Jambal Rinzen was selected as the best team of the event. In 2015, he passed the assessment and was admitted by MLB Nanjing Baseball Development Center."
7. Xiang, Xuan 梁璇 (2018-04-09). "中国棒球少年追梦职棒联盟" [Chinese Baseball Junior Dream Chaser Professional Baseball League]. China Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-06. Retrieved 2023-08-06.
  The article notes: "2007年离家后，强巴仁增只回过两三次家，条件限制，他也很少给家里电话，家里的变故曾让儿时的他感到命运不公，不愿与人交流，但好在棒球场让他找回自信，也看到了更广阔的天地。在与红袜队签约后，强巴仁增把家人拉进了一个微信群，时常往里面放一些自己训练的照片和视频"
  From Google Translate: "After leaving home in 2007, Jampa Rinzeng only returned home two or three times. Due to limited conditions, he seldom called home. Changes at home once made him feel that his fate was unfair when he was a child, and he was unwilling to communicate with others, but fortunately The baseball field allowed him to regain his confidence and see a wider world. After signing with the Red Sox, Jampa Rinzeng pulled his family into a WeChat group, and often put some photos and videos of his training in it"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Justin Qiang (simplified Chinese: 强巴仁增; traditional Chinese: 強巴仁增; pinyin: Qiángbā Rénzēng; Tibetan: Jampa Rigzin, བྱམས་པ་རིག་འཛིན) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject easily passes WP:GNG per the extensive sourcing presented above. 2601:204:C901:B740:F921:9566:95E3:FAA2 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNC as extremely well-sourced, especially taking into account the information found during this discussion. He is the first Tibetan to be signed by a Major League baseball team, which is notable to Tibet, notable in China, and notable every which way. If he ever makes it back to the show maybe the Dalai Lama will throw out the first pitch. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's already been released after playing only 17 games in the lowest possible minor league. It's a crystal clear WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure that WP:BLP1E can be validly invoked here, (at a minimum it’s certainly not WP:Run of the mill) as there appears to be coverage of his acting, childhood, personality, and family, the depth of which is unusual for someone known only for a single baseball event. 2601:204:C901:B740:3854:AE53:187C:E0DB (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use some common sense here. This is clearly a "first X in Y" article. The only coverage he received is because he signed with a team as a baseball player, which is also clearly one event. He was not a notable player in the slightest - he played 17 games in the lowest possible minor league, was then released, never played again, and doesn't appear to have any continuing coverage, I cannot confirm the date on the supposed 2023 article as there's no date on that one. He's likely to remain a low profile individual, and the fact he got signed is very "run of the mill." So all phases of BIO1E/BLP1E are satisfied. He would have clearly failed our old WP:NBASE guideline, and I haven't checked to see if print baseball encyclopedias still exist, but he would not have been mentioned in any of the old ones I had if they were updated and re-printed to now. SportingFlyer T·C 10:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV (albeit mostly in Chinese) mainly relating to a non-routine event (his signing), but which led to him being profiled by various media sources. Significant to baseball in China. Would not make sense to cover this signing as an article like Signing of Justin Qiang or similar. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signing a player is almost always a routine event, and even having reviewed the Chinese coverage I see no reason why this would possibly be considered non-routine, especially given our guidelines X in Y, the fact he would have clearly failed our now deprecated sports SNG for baseball, and the fact WP:BLP1E clearly covers articles like this. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG given media coverage in Chinese. Relevant figure to baseball in Tibet and China. Article can certainly be improved, though. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:55, 10 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Mishin[edit]

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

The page does not provide sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources that address Mishin's life and career in depth. LusikSnusik (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cyprus, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I'd be curious at the state of Russian-language (or foreign language overall) sources, though I agree that there don't seem to be SIGCOV in English-language ones. The current state of the article isn't what decides notability. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are lots of Russian-language Google hits for Мишин Никита Анатольевич at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or other versions of his name, such as https://globalmsk.ru/person/id/9815 or https://www.gazeta.ru/tags/person/nikita_mishin.shtml Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Eastmain notes, there is plenty out there in Russian to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 16:12, 6 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 Emma Ferguson and Dan Morris#Balthazar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balthazar (Perth restaurant)[edit]

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

I don't think we need to create restaurant articles based on 3 reviews, 2 of those being from Perth based publications. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator - article fails WP:SIGCOV Jaguarnik (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NYC Guru (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:CORP with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still don't think it passes WP:NCORP - it appears to be just a local restaurant as three of the five sources in the article fail WP:RESTAURANTREVIEW and the other two are local business news. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge to Emma_Ferguson_and_Dan_Morris#Balthazar Gjs238 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't assessed for notability, but that article is horribly promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 12:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other restaurants by the same duo are also up for AfD and are also promotional. I don't think there's necessarily paid editing going on here but it's still odd. SportingFlyer T·C 14:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the option of Merge which occurred with other restaurants associated with this couple.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the sources now in the article are more than sufficient to carry the burden of the GNG. It misses the point to say the sources are local. Metro Perth has 2.1 million people, roughly the same as Slovenia.Central and Adams (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant if it has the same population as Slovenia. WP:AUD states "At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." LibStar (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perth is the capital of Western Australia. Calling any of these sources local is extraordinarily disingenuous. Central and Adams (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to remind me it's the capital, I know that already. Similarly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aru (restaurant) got deleted on the basis of Melbourne coverage. And Melbourne is bigger than Perth. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If only the fact that some random other AfD came out some way were a deletion rationale... Central and Adams (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cityfields, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Mafia (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Mafia. Precedents have been set over several AfDs not just one random one. Perhaps you'll be asking for deletion review of these? LibStar (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I trust the process, which is part of the reason I don't badger editors who !vote to keep articles I myself nominate for deletion. Central and Adams (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo Inn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafeneion. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emma_Ferguson_and_Dan_Morris#Balthazar Gjs238 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG, deemonstrates significant coverage in multiple indepent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGSIG. A couple of passing mentions, only in local journals doesn't count as "notability". IncompA 08:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emma_Ferguson_and_Dan_Morris#Balthazar Gjs238 (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as excessive fragmentation, i.e. an unnecessary SPINOFF. Failing that, keep, as the restuarant meets the GNG per sources identified. gidonb (talk) 20:38, 6 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!} 05:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Crescent Rupayan Tower[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft deleted, then restored after the original nominator was blocked for undeclared paid editing (promoting a competitor to Rupayan). With their conflict of interest, they shouldn't have nominated this, but deletion was good for Wikipedia because the topic is not notable.

Circa 2013 this building was promised to be 35 stories high. As of July 2022 it was still awaiting planning approval and plans had been scaled back to just 15 stories.[26] If construction ever begins, it will be one of many buildings that size in Dhaka. Perhaps enough will be written about it to make it notable, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. Worldbruce (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised the last one was soft deleted even though I didn't explicitly !vote keep, I thought I pushed back pretty clearly. It does not pass WP:GNG in English language sources, though I missed the Business Post BD article which looks decent enough, but I'd be shocked if the (planned) second-tallest tower in Dhaka didn't have enough sources to be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Agreed WP:TOOSOON; once it is built, we can have an article on it.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:04, 10 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Rainbow[edit]

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

Non-notable production. Almost all of the sources are just pictures of Ekta Kapoor. DareshMohan (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Kpg jhp jm 06:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found for this film, sourcing used isn't reliable. Times of India is an iffy source per sourcebot. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 4 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 keep‎. Renaming the article can be a discussion that occurs on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting hand[edit]

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

Ugh. This might be a notable concept, but this article... is unreferenced and doesn't show the subject's notability. WP:TNT applies. Some other issues - well, for start, the concept of a starting hand goes beyond poker, it is used in many other card (and board) games. Not sure if there is a good redirect target (Texas hold 'em starting hands?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear these articles in general are in need of some care. This is a trickier one given how bare the article is. Since we have a viable non-glossary target, redirect for the short-term, but the concept is much wider than Texas hold'em. If not redirect, keep but move to Poker starting hand as literally every book on playing poker is going to have sigcov of this concept, many going beyond Texas hold'em. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nut hand for a few example books from google books). —siro χ o 06:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- nom even admits that it "might be a notable concept" and that nomination is based not on notability but on a lack of sources in the article, a state of affairs which is not relevant at AfD. A simple Gscholar search shows the depth and breadth of discussion about this topic. Central and Adams (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is a notable concept. AfD is not cleanup, even as the article could stand some work in terms of getting good sources added. User:Let'srun 14:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a clear encyclopedic/dictionary style term that is widely used and known.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several options, including retitling and redirect, along with Delete and Keep are being floated. It would be nice if these options were grounded in policy or reliable sources offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a notable concept and is a well known part of Poker and Poker-related card games. IncompA 08:25, 4 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 List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Gadbois[edit]

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

Non-notable local mayor, only sourcing is confirmation of him doing his job/attending events and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts. Djflem (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly urge you NOT to redirect this page. He is unique to the list of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts as he created one of New England's most prestigious parades and had family ties to the region for several decades. His interactions with federal officials, like Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., are extremely unique and not common practice for mayors. FranDoe16 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (possibly merge to Marlborough, Massachusetts with redirect pointing either there or as above). Reason to keep or merge is that there is a decent amount of SIGCOV on the subject's role in establishing a parade. This coverage extends to at least 2012, decades after subject's tenure, and is thus not routine coverage a mayor's job. This was cited in the article: [27], there's also this on proquest [28][29] —siro χ o 07:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge Wikipedia to keep this article. At the time of his tenure, Marlborough was considered one of the largest municipalities between Boston, Massachusetts and Worcester, Massachusetts. His role in organizing the Marlborough Labor Day Parade makes him a unique officeholder, as the parade is one of New England's largest and most prestigious parades to this day. FranDoe16 (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mayor Gadbois created one of New England's most prestigious parades. Politicians have frequented the parade; including, Elizabeth Warren, Ted Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., and many more. His role in organizing the parade shows that he went above and beyond the job of mayor. FranDoe16 (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several options have support here, but no consensus on what to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts The main argument for keeping seems to be that he started a parade during his term as mayor. I don't see how that is particularly notable based on our guidelines for notability. The sources given seem to give more credit to a different person. Thus, I'm not finding any significant coverage to justify meeting either GNG or NPOL. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts Nothing is present here that leads to this subject getting to any GNG. Starting a parade does not lend to inherent notability, nor does starting a parade that political figures attend, as it is quite common for them to campaign or attend at such events. User:Let'srun 13:54, 5 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 snow keep‎. I was the nominator but am closing the discussion per the clear consensus. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Ann Blaesing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, and meets the criteria for WP:INVALIDBIO. Furthermore, its content is entirely covered in Nan Britton. A previous 2017 AfD had transclusion issues and wasn't well-patronized. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, credible and reliable sources on the page pass WP:GNC. This is one of the most interesting stories in 20th century United States presidential history, and her notability exists within the sources and separate from her mother and her father (U.S president Warren G. Harding, Elizabeth Ann Blaesing was his only child, notable in itself as U.S. presidential children's pages seem acceptable as notable topics on Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with @Randy Kryn that WP:GNG is met here and this is a story worth telling in its own article. It's not a matter of being notable as a child of a president, but as the unacknowledged child of a president whose relationship was later proven (or so they say).

The fact her mother has an article doesn't mean she shouldn't as well - she's a person in her own right, who had a life story that's not set out in the other article. Both stories can be told alongside each other. The article could use some cleanup, as it launches straight into the claims of paternity without setting the predicate, but it's not a good candidate for deletion. Oblivy (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nom, the article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:INVALIDBIO. Oh, and Randy, WP:INVALIDBIO includes children of famous people. Just letting that out there for future use.

Keep. The sources already present in the article demonstrate WP:GNG. WP:INVALIDBIO specifically says That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A), emphasis mine. —siro χ o 05:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Concur with Siroxo's assessment.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite issues with previous iterations, this is an article about the individual that is thoroughly backed with reliable and verifiable sources about her that meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully agree with Siroxo's argument for retention and concur with the other points that have been raised in favour of keep. Dunarc (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:56, 4 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 Speedy Delete‎. A7 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Kumar Srivastava[edit]

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

Not seeing SIGCOV for this BLP - likely to fail WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Ludicrous self-promotion. Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't really care about sourcing here. This is clearly non-notable and promotional. HarukaAmaranth (話) 16:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Tagged as A7 - just waiting for an admin to assess. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:04, 7 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 00:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Baldwin[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG. Subject is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and California. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article clearly fails WP:GNG and is a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E, as per the nomination. Take 'em down, chief. IncompA 02:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and has WP:BLP issues. SportingFlyer T·C 09:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. BLP1E probably doesn't apply, as criteria 3 is not met: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." No opinion on the GNG argument. pburka (talk) 15:29, 4 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jabari Wamble[edit]

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

Unsuccessful nominee for a judgeship, not inherently notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article was almost certainly created too soon, but with the circumstances of the subject being nominated and ultimately not being confirmed to different seats on the federal U.S. judiciary led to this nominee receiving the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Sources on the article are good enough, but there is more out there as well, such as [[30]] and [[31]] User:Let'srun 00:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources currently in the article meet WP:GNG, particularly with regards to his nomination being withdrawn. Marquardtika (talk) 15:25, 7 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 00:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden Leach[edit]

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that lacks sustained independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E Let'srun (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Louisiana. Let'srun (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As per the nomination, this article clearly fails WP:GNG and is a case of WP:BLP1E. Not much else to say here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IncompA (talk • contribs) 03:01, 4 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 00:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Belguerfi[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and no sources providing significant coverage can be found online. Previously blpproded, then depreodded when refs that were removed were readded. Refs have since been removed (no clue why). Removed refs were passing mentions/databases. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article fails WP:GNG and as per the nomination, there are virtually no mentions of this guy anywhere. IncompA 03:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That is far from the truth and is very false IncompA because he is Algerian and played football professionaly in algeria were there first language is arabic that means there are mentions about in arabic. In fact there is many articles of walid belguerfi in arabic do your research before you nominated for deletion and also by the way I also added all the references back if that's what you wanted. David3829128 05:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Okay, rather what I should have said was "there are virtually no mentions of this guy on the English internet". Just because you claim he's a notable figure in the Arabic world, which appears to be false, because every mention of him is a passing mention, doesn't mean he deserves an article in the English Wikipedia.
  
  IncompA 04:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  How can you say every mention of him is passing? Have you reviewed every single Algerian source on him? SportingFlyer T·C 09:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DZfootball is about the only site I find and it's match recaps. Rest of what's given in the article are not in RS. Even in French sources, they are only player databases. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~keep~~ Their is also alot of French mentions of him. On wikepidia there are so many footballers with pages like this one why can't you delete their ones. Also Walid Belguerfi is mentioned in like 9 different wikepidia pages and this page has been up for more than a decade. There is no valid reason why this wikepidia page should be deleted.

- ~~keep~~ Their is also Competition dz that is French and mentions him and does match recaps. so that is not true its false their is not only DZfootball their is Competition DZ do better in your research. David3829128 03:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

- ~~keep~~ look at this source for example https://web.archive.org/web/20120627113118/http://www.cabba.org:80/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1/%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%84%D9%8A/441-%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%82-%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%82.html

- it is reliable because its is the clubs official webiste and it mentions his name in the title and the article is all about his contract extension and it is only about him. It is also independent and provides coverage. David3829128 15:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Delete considerably poor article and the references are useless Michael H (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~keep~~ it is not poor because it is reliable because its the official webiste and its not useless because it shows us he renewed his contract. which is a good reference. David3829128 17:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin, that @David3829128: has been making multiple !votes (which I have struck through). Giant Snowman 10:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- keep if you want to find mentions that are notable and reliable their are calameo articles which are like newspapers. on google search up belguerfi calameo and it will give you so many different articles and pieces of information. For example https://www.calameo.com/read/000061525361962197f76

this is only one of them I can send many more if you want. by the way you when you tap on the link you need to tap on the magnifying glass and search belguerfi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IonBOTfz10 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - above comment struck as the account has been blocked as sock. Giant Snowman 08:16, 6 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.