Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 23 February 25 >

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 no consensus. Sourcing is in question, but it appears to have been verified to exist. A consensus isn't going to develop to delete this. Star Mississippi 03:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kesatuan Gurita[edit]

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

most likely non-existant military unit, cannot find any reference for this unit other than wikilike websites or blogs. Hence, fails WP:GNG Ckfasdf (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – contrary to "wikilike websites or blogs," there are several relevant results on Google books. I don't understand what is leading nom to suspect that the unit doesn't exist at all. small jars tc 10:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels: I couldn't find Indonesian language source of this unit. Considering that this is Indonesian military unit, there should be any Indonesian language sources that mentioning about this unit, such as on information dept of the military/Navy or National Archives of Indonesia. The only available indonesian source are either blogs, forums or wikilike website.
There is actually a marine unit that have nickname of "Gurita" (Octopus), which is 5th Marine Infantry Battalion, but this unit is formed in 1962, based in Surabaya and not a special force, while "Kesatuan Gurita" said to be formed in 1982, based in Jakarta and dedicated special force to secure offshore oil platform. So it's safe to assume that they are not related. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree that there are a number of results on Google Books that qualify as WP:RS. Justwatchmee (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Justwatchmee: The issue is you just cannot find any single Indonesian source (esp. official source such as from Navy, marine or national archive) mentioning about this unit. Hence it's failing WP:GNG. Also, WP:RS doesn't means it's will always correct, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#"If it's written in a book, it must be true!". Ckfasdf (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comment. Detail information of the unit on this page at 3rd paragraph, numerous books claiming the existence of this unit may not be wrong. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Ashraf333: The problem is sources for this article is only from 9 books which all pretty much saying the same things. Also what's written on that article basically taken from Kingsbury. It's impossible to expand it further as those books the only reference. Since it's Indonesian military unit, there should be Indonesian language source that can used to expand it further. But as I explained on the comments above, there is simply no such Indonesian reference. Therefore it's failing WP:GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 03:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under Age (1964 film)[edit]

Under Age (1964 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure film by self-described "schlockmeister". No notable cast members or reviews to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless somebody can find evidence of previous notability (i.e. something like a newspaper article from 1964 mentioning it). As of now, pretty much everything that turns up on a Google search is an IMDB-type website. Highway 89 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If deleted, then Under Age should go as well an unnecessary film set index, and Under Age (1941 film) should be moved there. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is a review by a Rotten Tomatoes Critic [1]. But also, most of the rationale for deletion is wrong. No where in policy does it say "obscure" films can't have a page, especially if there is coverage...which this has. Also, "no notable cast members" is irrelevant. Just because a film doesn't have "known actors" does not mean the film cannot have a page...if there is coverage. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A single review usually is not enough to pass WP:NFILM (and I would hesitate to describe the one linked above as a "full length review"). That said, while the full section is not available in the preview view, this book has a good paragraph writeup on it. At the very least, I feel like it should get a light merge into Larry Buchanan's article and be given a mention in his career. Rorshacma (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did a little work on it, i think its notable enough to be kept.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 24 February 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 2022-23 North American winter. Star Mississippi 03:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023 North American cold wave[edit]

February 2023 North American cold wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It was a one-day cold snap, with no substantial or lasting impacts. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, just routine short-lived weather coverage, even if more extreme than usual. Reywas92Talk 21:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into 2022-23 North American winter I never saw this article as necessary, however, since there is some information in the article that isn’t in the respective section, I would support merging any independent content into that section. 71.125.62.146 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Canada, and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was a noteworthy cold event and produced the record coldest wind chill ever observed in the United States at Mount Washington, and numerous record lows were set in cities that hadn't been that cold for decades. The information in this article is well sourced and could definitely be expanded even more with some more sources that are definitely out there (i.e. which school districts delayed due to cold? Were people hospitalized with hypothermia? and so on). Highway 89 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, you think we need a stand-alone article because school was delayed? Big whoop, pretty routine in the winter. 2022–23_North_American_winter#Early_February_cold_wave covers this (and has room or expansion) just fine, and it should be redirected there. There've been a lot of records broken around the world but they don't need a separate page every time. Reywas92Talk 16:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. WP:CFORK. 69.200.249.200 (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't using those to establish notability, merely as a possibility for expansion of the article. The notability as a standalone article would come from the fact that multiple major records fell in this cold snap, including the Mt Washington wind chill record and Boston's first -10F temperature since the 1950s, and that national and even international news covered the event with articles that go deeper than just a one-paragraph piece ([2][3][4]). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ski areas shutting down due to cold is normal, at least not in the western US where I'm from. Highway 89 (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple records were broken by this event. If the article can not be kept, it should be merged into 2022-23 North American winter. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple records being broken is not in and of itself a reason for an article. While the article might pass WP:GNG, it miserably fails WP:NOPAGE given how it contains little information independent of the section. The only record that gives significance to the article is the record low wind chill in the US - coldest temperature since 1957 is not a reason to create an article. Given that there was only one fatality, we cannot use impact as a reason to create an article. That’s why the article should be merged. No information would be lost, and readers can find all the necessary information in one place. Not that many schools closed because the height of the cold came in Friday night and Saturday morning, the weather wasn’t too bad on Friday morning. 71.125.62.146 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the record-breaking information cannot stand entirely alone, however, it plays into a larger narrative of increasingly unpredictable weather. While yes, there are areas in the world where this cold wave would have seemed trivial, it happened in New England following extremely confusing weather patterns. I think for this article to stand alone, it should attempt to weave in the global and environmental concerns of hap-hazarded weather. This winter, despite having a record-breaking wind chill, has also been one of the warmest. There are frequently weeks in which the temperature highs have gone from 20's to nearly 60's. If more concerning and capturing information about the overall weather this winter is brought into the article, I believe it would stand a better chance in terms of being informational and capturing of an audience. Alternatively, I don't disagree with the idea to merge this into the 2022-23 North American winter. My only fear there is that simply merging it prevents the ability for this record-breaking event to be as impactful to readers. Eeshanortheastern (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, alternatively do a merge as suggested above. I've lived in southern Ontario all my 60+ years, and the cold snap this month was a short-lived blip. There have been whole weeks of -10 celsius and below temps in years gone by, but this lasted no more than a couple of days, and therefore doesn't warrant a standalone article. PKT(alk) 22:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into 2022-23 North American winter would be the best solution because, while the cold snap itself was a little short of being noteworthy unto itself, it easliy goes hand in glove with this winter as a whole. TH1980 (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into 2022-23 North American winter. Snow in the Hollywood Hills, so yes this is unusual but that doesn't change that this is a completely unnecessary fork.  // Timothy :: talk  04:12, 2 March 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. Salvio giuliano 23:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Film Actors' Theatre[edit]

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

Topic does not seem notable based on a google search. Top results are all forks of Wikipedia Medarduss (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Medarduss (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to have hosted notable productions or to be notable for any other reason. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [Update: If the sources mentioned below are added, I would not object to keeping the article.] -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:GOOGLE has a lot on the limitations of that method, and many apply here. In English "National Film Actors' Theatre" returns wiki mirrors because its a made up name for wikipedia. "Государственный" is more usually translated as "State" not national. But it hasn't been known by this name since 2019 anyway, when it became the "Центр театра и кино под руководством Никиты Михалкова" - literally the "Theatre and Cinema Centre under the leadership of Nikita Mikhalkov" Search under those terms and you'll find more returns. But you'd expect most of the coverage of a subject like this to be in Russian, and there is a lot in this language:
And others like culture.ru, kino-teatr.ru, Smotrim, muzcentrum.ru, etc etc. The source used in the article currently should have been used WP:BEFORE as well, it states Sergei Gerasimov (film director) rehearsed and staged his adaptation of The Young Guard (novel) here, as well as Red and Black prior to developing them into films (The Young Guard (film) (1948) and ru:Красное и чёрное (фильм, 1976)). It further notes that the theatre was "the first permanent theatrical association of film actors", and is "the only theatre where only film actors are employed." The English article is very basic and doesn't give cover much of what would be found in these sources and would demonstrate notability. But the Russian category includes 272 articles of actors and actresses who have performed with the theatre, as well as the category for 32 of the directors who have staged works here, including Gerasimov, Oleg Anofriyev, Aleksei Dikiy, Savva Kulish, Anatoly Efros and others. There is also a long list on the Russian wiki page of the productions hosted there since 1946, and the current and recent troupe and guests, which includes the likes of Oleg Strizhenov, Lyudmila Zaytseva, Larisa Luzhina, Tamara Syomina, Natalya Fateyeva, Alexander Pyatkov, Valentina Telichkina, Gennadi Yukhtin, Natalya Arinbasarova, Lionella Pyryeva, and Darya Sagalova. Significant in Russian but will be missed with a google search in English using an invented name based on a version that is no longer in use. Spokoyni (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the sources (those that were mentioned above by the colleague) are added to the current stub, the article will meet WP:ORG. I have put a translation tag to invite others to expand the article with materials from the Russian Wikipedia.ThegaBolt (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:21, 17 February 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, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 23:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mashrabjon Ruziboev[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG HeinzMaster (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how is the importance of a fighter not proven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barseghyan1234321 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above user has draftified the article and removed the AfD template. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to a draft to improve it, add the necessary information, links to the poedikt if necessary. Removed the deletion template because it gave an error. Tell me what information about the fighter to add for the usefulness of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barseghyan1234321 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG yet. Nswix (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A world ranking of 358th means he's a long way from meeting WP:NMMA. None of the references in the article show significant independent coverage, they're either databases or reporting fight results. My own search for sources, in English of course, didn't find anything to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kacha Dhaga[edit]

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

Was redirected, and then reverted without improvement. Still only brief mentions and unreliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 22:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:NFP, passing mentions, nothing at all in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the serial is on aired these days on a leading network, garnering good feedback and ratings. The article does include citations from strong websites. It is being popular internationally as well like elaborated in Ref#1.Lillyput4455 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Refs are promotional and listing type entries, nothing that meets RS with SIGCOV. Popularity does not confer notability.  // Timothy :: talk  04:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect 10 (NFL film)[edit]

The Perfect 10 (NFL film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability DonaldD23 talk to me 20:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Country of Castles and Fortresses[edit]

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

Not notable, deleted in Ukrainian wikipedia Шиманський Василь (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Azim Uddin College[edit]

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

Advert for non notable institution, moved from draft bypassing AFC Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously fails GNG. Silikonz💬 19:33, 24 February 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. Sandstein 09:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Mansley[edit]

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

Articles fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have only nominated 6 articles today. These 3 references simply do not satisfy WP:GNG. One is about him not getting offered a contract after a trial, i mean really? Simione001 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I am not sure, if you should put Newcastle Jets down or the previous incarnation names. [16], he was listed in this history article [17], but don't know more about his role at the club during the time. There is too much WP:ROUTINE and that is concerning, I don't think I see a GNG pass regardless of the A League and fully pro league games in the English league, somewhat concerning. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. First link above does not even work. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG With coverage above.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The odd passing mention is not enough to establish notability. The first reference given above returns nothing, and is not even on the Wayback Machine. Fails GNG. Springnuts (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: is sourcing sufficient or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on sufficiency of sourcing - insufficient imo as above: lack of significant coverage. Springnuts (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are not sufficient to meet GNG. The three provided above, the first one leads to a dead end, second one mentions the subject once and the third one pulls up a database. Not enough for SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article has several sources that deal with the subject in detail. Hack (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @GiantSnowman:, @Govvy:, @Springnuts:, many sources have been added to the article. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources which show notability. GiantSnowman 21:55, 2 March 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! 05:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

District Jinnah Public School and College Mandi Bahauddin[edit]

District Jinnah Public School and College Mandi Bahauddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly WP:OR, nothing in coverage, fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like government is trying to establish the University of Gujrat sub-campus on the permises of this school and coverage is related to that (mainly news reports that are primary sources). This article says that the university campus is operational, possibly since 2019. A grant was approved in 2005. As this school's status is in limbo and due to lack of significant coverage, I think delete would be the right option. Alternatively, just redirect to University of Gujrat if consensus is reached. BookishReader (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Single ref is a dead link, and I couldn't find the source. BEFORE showed social media sites, directory style listings, and mentions in relation to other subjects, nothing with SIGCOV from RS. The sources mentioned above do not have SIGCOV of the subject. Except for the name and location, this appears to be entirely an OR booster style page.  // Timothy :: talk  04:47, 2 March 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! 05:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Child English School (Jamugurihat)[edit]

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

Private school with no indication of notability. Best sources I can find are trivial mentions in Sentinel Assam and News18. This is far from meeting WP:NORG; see WP:SIRS. PROD rationale from User:Etzedek24 remains valid Small private school with no coverage. Fails GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Refs in article are not independent RS. BEFORE showed social media sites, directory style listings, nothing with SIGCOV from RS.  // Timothy :: talk  04:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rollan Roberts II[edit]

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

Page was De-WP:PRODed by 2crzppul who created a malformed AfD with the nominating statement "Properly nominating for other user. Demonstrates some notability, but debate is needed." TartarTorte 18:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a ton of interest and attention on US Presidential Elections, and I believe Wikipedia should have as much information about these elections as possible, including pages for candidates like Roberts who are minor candidates but have received some press coverage. Kevingates4462 (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Tristanthebard (talk) 18:36, 1 March 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. setting aside !votes not based in policy, there remains clear consensus to delete. Anyone wishing to rewrite this needs to begin by finding WP:SIGCOV and building the article based on that. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sameh Sami[edit]

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

Hello all, The article was nominated for deletion, but the deletion discussion happened to have a disparity of opinion due to the presence of several puppet accounts in the discussion. There is a recommendation to reopen the deletion discussion.

I would like to express my point of view about the deletion: I am an Arab and I have not heard of it before, and the person who published the article is a banned account on the French Wikipedia and an account banned on the English Wikipedia because of its use of dummies accounts, the person tried to publish the article on the Arabic Wikipedia and the article was deleted 14 times, and he tried to write The article was published on the French Wikipedia, and the article was deleted (quick deletion). The article was published on the Dutch Wikipedia, and there was a discussion to delete it, and the article was deleted from the Dutch Wikipedia.

Plus there are many broken and unprofessional references. Osps7 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Egypt. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This work is inarguably the workproduct of a blocked sockpuppet of a blocked sockmaster. In the previous AfD the sockpuppet and at least one other blocked sock asserted keep. Based on discussion in the first process, it appears that several of the Arabic language sources neither directly detail nor accurately account for the subject. BusterD (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Comment:: It seems that Mr. Osama Eid Osps7 has a problem with the author of the article or with the creator of the article. Please see the complaints page on the Arabic Wikipedia

https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ويكيبيديا:إداريون/مشاكل#يجب_التركيز_على_عمل_المحررين_وإدخال_المهنية_إلى_عملهم_ويجب_أن_يبتعدوا_عن_النكاية, as there seem to be several complaints about him and another person who is considered his teacher.I do not want to register my name so as not to pursue my articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.190.30.8 (talk • contribs) 14:28, February 18, 2023 (UTC)

  • keep. And I’m An editor is an Egyptian Wikipedia editor and there is a revised and protected article about this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.190.30.8 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This subject was previously discussed at AfD and after closure immediately re-nominated at the suggestion of the closer of that process. The previous process was made confusing by now blocked sockpuppets and ip editors from other language Wikipedias. We welcome the input of good faith contributors of all languages, especially in analysis of non-English sourcing. Discovered sockpuppetry will be unwelcome, brought to the discussion's attention, and dealt with appropriately. BusterD (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep or redirect as per previously discussed at Afd--Ibrahim daowd (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete . I am an Arab and I am not know film magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.181.107.198 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As I said earlier, the article is for advertising and promotional purposes only, the personality does not achieve importance, and I am an Arab and I have not heard of this personality before, and the existing references do not talk about the person and some of them do not work.

Many sock puppet accounts and IP addresses tried to defend the article, and this confirms that there is a violation of policies, and the article also created an account that was banned in a number of Wikipedia projects. The article was deleted in the French Wikipedia, the article was deleted in the Dutch Wikipedia (after discussion) and the article was deleted 14 times in the Arabic Wikipedia! The article should be deleted.--Osps7 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck delete vote as your nomination statement counts as your delete vote, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment starting the previous AfD was the second edit of new account, from Adelk220. He seems as suspected. And after closure immediately re-nominated at the suggestion of the closer of that process.. why?

Mr. Atlantic306 asked him on his page (have you edited as Ibrahim.ID [18]?) Mr. osama Osps7 should read this links: 

[19]
it is an interview with him in the Egyptian Syndicate and he is an editor of an Egyptian film magazine so he is notable. please read the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia article.

- So don't have your say!

There are many of references are not an article written by him as claimed in the nomination and is significant coverage about him translated here.

here the protection level for " Sameh Sami " ([Modify=Sysop Only] (unchecked) [Move=Sysop Only] in he Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. -Sameh Sami is the editor-in-chief of Film Magazine, which is considered one of the prominent and influential magazines[20] in Egypt. It is the only specialized magazine now in Egypt in the culture of cinema. He is also the director of the Cairo Jesuits[21], which is one of the prominent cultural places[22] in Egypt[23] built on the legacy of the second oldest studio[24]. Cinematic and includes famous art schools such as the School of Film, Animation and Theater.

  • keep He is an editor in chief of an influential publication is sufficiently notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.243.255.179 (talk) 15:52, 2 March 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 Arthur Rense. Star Mississippi 03:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rense Prize[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all top results are mirrors or substantially copied from this article. In addition, all substantial prose content here is closely paraphrased from the source. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: properly sourced and cleaned up content with Arthur Rense. There is not SIGCOV from RS about the article subject (the prize) for a separate article. I was hoping this could be a keep and it might be in the future, but not today.  // Timothy :: talk  05:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Conway (actor)[edit]

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

Not meeting ACTOR. Has only held bit parts such as "Republican #1" or "coach driver". Nothing found in Google that shows they've had anything more than minor roles. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have added some more detail to back up this claim. Denis is an established award winning actor in Irish Theatre and nominated for an IFTA alongside a reputable list of actors including Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Michael Gambon and Don Wycherley. Sissco (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please read WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. And reframe your recommendation/argument on the basis of those policies. (Otherwise, being "in the company of" other/notable actors doesn't make one notable. Notability isn't inherited, transferrable or automatic.) Also consider reading MOS:SURNAME. Guliolopez (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Happy to be swayed, but a search in the Irish Times areturns little to no coverage of the subject as a primary topic. A search of the Irish Independent returns a few things. Like this or this interview - but the latter in particular isn't independent of the subject and so not ideal for a notability claim. A search in the Irish Examiner returns only one piece of material coverage - which is the same sole news piece we find in the article itself. A search of the Irish Film and Television Network site (which covers even ROTM events in Irish film and TV industry) doesn't return much more than passing mentions (in each case the results are about planned or completed projects and the subject is mentioned, mostly in passing, alongside other jobbing actors/cast/etc.) The IFTA nom and the Irish Times Theatre Awards wouldn't seem to contribute much to the "well-known and significant award or honor" criteria under WP:ANYBIO. That many of the roles listed are "Man #1" or "Detective #2" or "[Unnamed] Coach Driver" doesn't help with the "*significant* roles in multiple notable films" element of WP:NACTOR. While not cut-and-dried, I'm not seeing enough to definitely show that WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV is met. Guliolopez (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll continue to add career details to support this claim. His main body of work is in Theatre. I take the point about minor roles, but these are included as examples of roles at an early stage in his career. Later work, including Aisha, the Running Mate and his portrayal of Brian Cowen are, I would argue, notable.
    I disagree with your assertion that the IFTA nom and Irish Times Theatre Awards are not significant awards. Whilst perhaps not significant in an international context these are the premier awards for Irish actors.
    A search on https://irishtheatre.ie/ does return further results on theatre work. His work on the Lieutenant of Inishmore was also notable https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/jul/04/the-lieutenant-of-inishmore-review-aidan-turner-martin-mcdonagh 37.228.224.181 (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is all that the Guardian article says about him: "...Chris Walley as her hapless brother and Denis Conway as Padraic’s dad all give good support." That's it. I don't see how that can be "notable" - is there another review of that piece that says more? Lamona (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: Is this better? Interview with Denis Conway JMHamo (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMHamo: Unfortunately, interviews are not independent sources. After all, it's him talking about himself. Lamona (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per awards, long list of TV, stage and cinema participation. Not a Hollywood star and the References section is not great, however the actor's notability is apparent. Mozzcircuit (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning best actor 2010 in the Irish Theatre Awards for his role as Irish Man in the Gate Theatre production of Tom Murphy’s The Gigli Concert, which is a significant achievement in Irish theatre and demonstrates 'significant critical attention' to pass WP:ARTIST JMHamo (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:01, 24 February 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 and redirect to Sonu Nigam. Salvio giuliano 18:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neevan Nigam[edit]

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

Biography of a child with a notable parent. Has been a redirect to the article about the father for a few years, but has now been created as a standalone article.

The boy has performed with his dad a few times, but nothing that would make him meet WP:NMUSIC. There are no independent sources, and no actual claim to notability. bonadea contributions talk 18:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said in the nomination statement, it has been a redirect for several years. Since an editor chose to edit war against me and another editor to remove that redirect (edit history), and since the boy is not mentioned in any independent sources, it made sense to me to bring the article to AfD. "Redirect" is of course a perfectly valid outcome of an AfD discussion, and if that is the outcome I'll request page protection to avoid more edit warring. --bonadea contributions talk 18:33, 3 March 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. Sandstein 09:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Diop[edit]

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

Not meeting GNG, most sources used are non-RS, appears promotional. Nothing found in Gnews that we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." (bold mine)
The source in question includes a sentence and a paragraph. That is clearly more than a trivial mention. It mentions that she is U.S.-based, that she is a business and strategy online coach and also details how she lost her job during the COVID pandemic and how in a year, she used the $1,200 check to build a multi-million-dollar business. It also talks about her academy. The subject herself may not be the main topic of the article but according to our guideline, that is not necessary to help establish notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but, since the Forbes article is marked as a contributor piece, it's unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: Thank you for pointing that out. I did not know that, but you are 100% right. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The La Vanguardia source does look good and I consider that to be WP:RS. I am uncertain on where the other sources stand in terms of reliability so will await comments from others. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Univision also seems like an uncontroversial WP:RS. A quick search reveals additional sources like Fortune and Black Enterprise. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fortune barely talks about her and the article isn't about her. Black Enterprise is an interview, condensed down to a few lines under her photo. Most of these sources are trivial mentions and not enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources presented are more than trivial mentions. They allow for notable content like the fact that she built a multi million dollar business from the ground up in a year to be extracted without original research. As I quoted on my previous comment WP:SIGCOV states that the subject does not need to be the main topic of the reliable source of the coverage to help establish notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Black Enterprise is a few lines of text under her photo, the article discusses many things besides her. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Few lines is enough for WP:SIGCOV. Being the main topic is not required. But in any case, here is another article from Black Enterprise where she is the main topic: Meet the single mom who turned her $1,200 stimulus check into a seven-figure business after getting laid off. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is also minimal coverage, more of the space on the page is used to show her instagram and her photo than talking about her. Significant coverage is an entire, full-page article, not a few lines of text on a site that has more space with ads than article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. To me WP:SIGCOV is a clear guideline. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for point that out.  // Timothy :: talk  05:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fairly obvious WP:CHURNALISM going on with each source more or less parroting the same lines. No serious independent coverage of the individual.-KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check this extensive article about the subject from La Vanguardia (Spain) or this other one from Mag, El Comercio (Peru) or the three articles from the US Latin news channel Univision. All are about the subject of the bio and all find the fact that she built a multi million dollar business in a year with a check from the CVOVID pandemic notable enough to publish. They are in Spanish but they can be easily translated into English with most browsers. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per KH-1. The significant coverage appears to be a serious case of WP:CHURNALISM as it is more or less the same article reposted on different sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHURNALISM is just an essay, is neither a policy or a guideline and if you look at the different titles and dates of the reliable sources both in the article and with a quick search you will see that they do not match. the US channel Univision for example, published three different articles and independent reliable sources from different countries also published articles. Many do cover similar information, but others don't. The guideline that needs to be satisfied is WP:SIGCOV. And there is significant coverage (more than trivial mentions) from multiple independent reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My main concern is this is a BLP and the sourcing is very questionable. I don't think it clears the independent RS with SIGCOV test. BLPs need to be completely based on clearly independent unbiased RS.  // Timothy :: talk  05:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hello TimothyBlue, Please confirm if you think that the references from La Vanguardia (a major newspaper from Spain) or from El Comercio (Peru) or from the US channel Univision to name just 3, are not RS or are not independent of the subject, and if so, please elaborate why. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:22, 3 March 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! 06:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Tremethick[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER also can't find reliable sources that have a significant coverage of the subject of the article to prove notability Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 12:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 17:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - only one (arguably) notable role. Little to no third party coverage.-KH-1 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 18:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti International Convent School[edit]

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

Private institution that fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I was unable to find any WP:SIRS for this school when searching the name. All I can find are generic, low-quality database sources like the ones already cited and social media, which is not independent of the school. The article appears to have been created by an WP:SPA. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:58, 24 February 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! 05:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pailan World School[edit]

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

Private school that is required to pass WP:NORG but can't find any WP:SIRS. All I can find are generic non-WP:RS profile pages like the ones already referenced in the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 17:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per NSCHOOL and WP:SIGCOV. The sourcing are merely listings. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NSCHOOL. BEFORE showed social media, government sites, directory listings, nothing that could be considered SIGCOV from independent RS.  // Timothy :: talk  06:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 17:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso Collazo[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Antonenko[edit]

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

Played 35 minutes of professional football then disappeared. I can't find anything that would satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The former clearly states that [sports] biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.

Best I can find is Kraj and Osipinfo, both just trivial mentions. I have also taken into consideration Tribuna, a loan announcement from the Belarusian Wikipedia, and Orsha, which is a trivial mention again. He is also mentioned in a Livejournal fan blog that I found but this isn't WP:RS of course. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sony Exmor image sensors[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This was formerly part of the Exmor article, but a discussion resulted in a consensus to remove this list from the article and recommend it go to an alternative forum. If it shouldn't be in the article itself, it shouldn't be a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That ABSOLUTELY doesn't follow! Lists are often detached from articles by agreement. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are done for space reasons only, and would be valid content if in the article itself. This was made to replace its removal from the article. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 24 February 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yanga (singer)[edit]

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

No sign as a notable singer/band -- too soon; contest winner; no track record, GenQuest "scribble" 14:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP, Not only did the subject win one of the biggest talent shows Idols South Africa, but she had over 36 million votes to win the show, she scored a recording deal with Gallo Record Company and she was the first artist from the show winners to peak at number one on iTunes. She received an honorary award at The World's Children's Prize Ceremony. It says here on the official South African Music Awards website that her album Promised Land was nominated for Best RnB album in 2020.shelovesneo (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She seems notable, and has been making the news since 2018 until this month. She has a credible claim to notability for winning the competition, also there was news about her delayed prize. Sources include:
  1. https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/entertainment/2020-02-14-2018-idols-sa-winner-yanga-sobetwa-buys-her-family-a-brand-new-home/
  2. https://www.timeslive.co.za/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2023-02-18-idols-sa-star-yanga-sobetwa-prays-for-kairo-lord-i-believe-you-will-guide-zinhle-and-be-a-father-to-kairo/
  3. https://www.iol.co.za/entertainment/yanga-sobetwa-finally-gets-her-r1m-buys-home-for-family-42701604
  4. https://www.timeslive.co.za/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2022-04-30-heres-how-former-idols-sa-winner-yanga-sobetwa-celebrated-her-21st-birthday/
CT55555(talk) 19:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cmnt: Winning any of the hundred or so [insert country] Idol programs and their iterations on any given year does not impart encyclopedic notability—just momentary, fleeting fame. See NOT THE NEWS. There is a huge difference. That's why it's TOO SOON. GenQuest "scribble" 16:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG as per sources an above. It feels like WP:WORLDWIDE is being disregarded for a number of South African articles being nominated, where the subjects receive sustained coverage over an extended period in WP:RS because some nominators and participants are not familiar with the South African sources, or with the subject. “I’ve never heard of them” is not a valid reason for deleting an article.Park3r (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Singh Rana[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Rana won 2022 Delhi Municipal Corporation election which was a local election. On 14 January 2023, same type of this article on Ajeet Singh Yadav (politician) was deleted. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajeet Singh Yadav (politician). ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 11:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 24 February 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Barritt[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Bit-part roles rather than something substantial to give the subject WP:SIGCOV. – Meena • 11:50, 24 February 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 Survivor: Vanuatu. The target can be changed to the list if people decide it's more appropriate. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Daugherty[edit]

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

Notable primarily for winning Survivor: Vanuatu. Sure, he won against the outrageous odds, but that's all there is. I'm uncertain whether post-Survivor activities help that much. May likely fail WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP. Must redirect to either that season page or the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Alternatively, delete if content holds no value. George Ho (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think lying to get time off work is GNG-worthy. There is a Navy sailor with the same name that pops up in searches, nothing for this person. Redirect to the show's article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to either Survivor: Vanuatu or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (no preference between the two). Lacks standalone notability outside of connections to the show. However, as other Survivor winners have articles (which pass GNG), it is possible more references are available so I have no objection to recreation with proper sources. Redirect preserves a page's history, so I strongly prefer that route over outright deletion. Frank Anchor 17:12, 24 February 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karavali Munjavu[edit]

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

Delete due to Wikipedia:Notability policy Nimmoun (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:28, 24 February 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delwar Hussain[edit]

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

An anthropologist and university lecturer who wrote a book. The book was widely reviewed in academic journals, is held by more than 100 libraries, and has been cited 58 times, all of which is good. The notes for WP:PROF criterion #1, however, say that demonstrating significant impact typically requires "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Nothing else he has published has made much impact.

The cited sources are a self-published blog post, his non-independent capsule bio at The Guardian (one of several publications he occasionally writes for), and his non-independent capsule bio at the School of Social and Political Science where he teaches. Searches found no independent reliable sources that would allow him to meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Worldbruce (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as a book author and a journalist seems to be not notable and the nom gave a good explanation above. I think, the page could be deleted. Mozzcircuit (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been able to find several ([31][32][33][34]) academic reviews of his primary book, suggesting a possible WP:NAUTHOR pass. Curbon7 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know academics can be notable for non-academic writing (popular history, fiction, poetry, etc.) but I confess I'd never considered applying WP:NAUTHOR to scholarly reviews of books in their academic field. My sense is that faculty are expected to publish, and these days almost every scholarly book attracts some reviews in the plethora of academic journals. So allowing scholarly reviews of a single academic book to demonstrate notability would move the bar substantially lower than I think the creators of WP:PROF and WP:NAUTHOR ever intended. I look forward to hearing more views. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Some fields of academia are more oriented toward publishing books than others, which focus more on journal articles. The typical wiki-notability rule of thumb invoked for book-oriented fields is that the academic has to have published multiple books, each of which has received multiple reviews. If there is only one book and nothing else, then it might make more sense to refactor the article to be about the book, using the reviews as secondary sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not entirely obvious, but does not seem notable enough. Has written one book, and the book does not particularly notable. Jeppiz (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the suggestion of refactoring this article to focus on the more noteworthy book he authored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the scholarly reviews are enough for a pass, either AUTHOR or PROF. That other scholars have taken notice of his book would seem to satisfy PROF. Unless he's basically told his theories were garbage, I'd suspect giving a book review qualifies as scholarly notice. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reviews of a single book are not enough for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. He'd need more books, or maybe a really outstandingly transformative one, and this isn't that. Someone could surely write an article about his book, but that would be very different from the article that we currently have - I don't think there's anything useful in the current article for that, so I don't think we need to consider the suggestion of refactoring the article in this deletion discussion. I'm also concerned that this article appears to be very out of date (for example, he has not written for the guardian since 2010), but I couldn't find anything to update it with. I suspect the author has left both academia and journalism and is no longer a public figure in any sense. -- asilvering (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more input regarding whether or not NAUTHOR and/or NPROF are met
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. One multiply-reviewed book is not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me and that seems the only case. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there was any content about the book, I’d say to rewrite into an article about the book instead, since the reviews give us WP:NBOOK. But it typically takes several books for WP:NAUTHOR. And there’s no way we’re looking at WP:NPROF. Contrary to the claim above, in academia a book review does not qualify as “scholarly notice” to the degree required to make someone remarkable compared to the baseline expectation for all profs (which is what NPROF is trying to capture). Having a book with a handful of reviews is, in anthropology, the bare minimum not to get fired. It’s an achievement, sure, but no more notable from an encyclopedia’s perspective than a doctor who finishes their residency. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reviews of a single book are not enough for WP:NAUTHOR and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:53, 1 March 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 Reynolds (surname). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Fitz Reynold[edit]

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

No references on the page for many years. I see mentions in other refs but not enough to write anything more than that the person existed. JMWt (talk) 10:30, 24 February 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 Socialist Party of Great Britain#Breakaway groups. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Communism (journal)[edit]

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

This newspaper or journal may well have existed. The question to be answered here, in my opinion, is whether "Libertarian Communism (journal)" or however it styled, meets the notability guidelines for publications. This is, of course, something asserted to published from 1972 to 1976, so there may well be no online archive of its publication history independent of the libcom.org reference already cited. A WP:BEFORE search done, and there appears to be no ISSV or OCLC number for "Libertarian Communism (journal)". That said, given this article's longevity on en.wp, it would appear to me that a deletion discussion would be preferable to an outright WP:A7 deletion. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Libertarianism, and Politics. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that this was published in the 70s may mean that there are some print sources out there somewhere. However, unless such sources can be unearthed, we have no reason to assume that they exist and have no sources to build an article upon. The rather general title doesn't make it easier to search for sources either. --Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to fail WP:NJOURNAL and lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A journal produced by a relatively minor political party for just four years (which then, according to p.161 of this book, seems to have been discontinued not long after the splinter group which established the journal merged with another party) is unlikely to be notable, and this is reflected in the lack of reliable sources. WJ94 (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Socialist Party of Great Britain. I'll put a line in about it there. I think it's reasonable to keep this as a redirect because someone searching for "libertarian communism" and hoping to get this journal won't be helped at all by the article Libertarian communism. But there are almost no sources in this article, and if no one comes up with them during this AfD it shouldn't stick around. -- asilvering (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no need for me to edit Socialist Party of Great Britain - it's already there. Ready for a redirect, nothing further to merge. -- asilvering (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Socialist Party of Great Britain#Breakaway groups per asilvering. I agree with the nom. and others that the subject fails WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG, so a standalone page is not warranted. I would specifically target the redirect to the "Breakaway groups" section, where the journal is mentioned, per WP:RSECT. Sal2100 (talk) 16:05, 24 February 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 programs broadcast by Kapamilya Channel#News and current affairs. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News Patrol[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSHOW/WP:GNG. There are sources that mentions this show, but there is no WP:SIGCOV. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:33, 24 February 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 Daniel Quinn. Salvio giuliano 08:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways[edit]

If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years, I can't see anything that meets WP:NB JMWt (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

APMEX[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine company news, PR, annoucements and press-releases. scope_creepTalk 08:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a WP:TNT case and needs to go. It is absolute junk of the worst type of brochure article. I will go through the references. scope_creepTalk 21:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I do wonder if there's perhaps potential for a merger into an article about relationships between Japan and the Caribbean countries, but a collection of unconnected bits of information isn't allowed per NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and as such I find the unstated "keep" somewhat weak. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada–Japan relations[edit]

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

The relations between these countries are quite minor and fails WP:GNG. 1 minor agreement, 2 Japanese people living in Grenada (!) and no embassies don't make for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the Japanese wikipedia page doesn't actually cover much- what diplomatic delegations in other countries would be responsible for issues if they arose mostly. But one thing they do mention that seems noteworthy is that Grenada is one of 12 countries not to send anyone to the coronation of Japan's new emperor. Certainly doesn't seem like there are any bilateral relations. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a bit confused, Why are you indicating for deletion, while also saying that the fact about Grenada being only a handful of countries not to recognize the new emperor is noteworthy? I would say that that fact merits the article be kept. Bensci54 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That fact doesn't necessarily make the subject notable. The article has to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Dekimasu are you arguing for Keeping this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. Yilloslime (talk) 20:28, 1 March 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! 05:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra Schiavo[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Coverage is routine and limited to making comments as ambassador rather than indepth coverage where she is the subject. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ping me if more comprehensive sources are found. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:18, 2 March 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! 05:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N-ary Topsis[edit]

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

I’ve checked this article and found several issues. I'm requesting to delete this article, and I don't suggest merging because of the following reasons:

(1) There is an article for TOPSIS method already. Why do we need another article for a small extension on the TOPSIS method? For example, there is a page for Analytic hierarchy process. Should we have a page for the “Pair-wise comparisons analytic hierarchy process”?

(2) This is a clear case of self-promotion on Wikipedia (user name = author's name of the primary reference). Also, Similarity-based-TOPSIS has been deleted recently because of self-promotion issue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Similarity-based-TOPSIS

(3) There are not enough independent references, and it cannot pass the notability factor of Wikipedia.

(4) This article is hard to read and has no value for the readers. The structure of the article is like an academic paper. Also, there are so many extensions to the TOPSIS method which are more valuable than this small extension. Scholartop (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Partial merge (as in, a single or possibly a couple sentences) to TOPSIS. I agree that a standalone article is in no way indicated. Functionally there's a single reference (Luuka) and the rest is padding for ancillary information. However, notability does not apply within an article, only at the article level, and it seems topical as a mention. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The self-promotion is obvious in this article. Hence, my suggestion is delete.Narges 2020 (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to stamp the self-promotion out of the page history, and then redirect to TOPSIS if desired. Writing a new sentence there from scratch, if we decide a mention is warranted, would be cleaner than trying to salvage the least bad part of text that should not have been added in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, editors advocating Merge, Delete and Delete/Redirect, more opinions would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 24 February 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! 03:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola Yomiuri School, Bijapur[edit]

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

Private school so, per WP:NSCHOOL, needs to meet organisation notability. I can't find even one source that would meet WP:ORGCRIT requirements let alone the multiple WP:SIRS needed. Appears to be a non-notable private school with no independent media coverage. I'm not even sure if the coverage is enough to warrant a redirect to List of Jesuit educational institutions or List of schools in India#Karnataka or any other possible target. For me, this looks like a clear deletion candidate. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the name of the school changed a while back. It is now called Loyola Institutions or Loyola Pre-University College in Vijayapur. The address remains the same. The website is loyolainstitutions.org. There probably will be Kannada websites that mention the school. Cardofk (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found any significant coverage from independent sources under the newer name? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you? Cardofk (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look but wasn't able to find any WP:SIRS coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, just now, after finding that there was nothing in English, I put the name in Kannada, got ಲೊಯೊಲಾ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ, and a few pages of results, but I have no way of knowing whether those media sites that emerged were reliable. Cardofk (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it mess up the AfD template if I rename the article? Cardofk (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does, unfortunately. If it is kept, then please do the renaming after the AfD concludes. If it is deleted, you may wish to rename the school at List of Jesuit educational institutions and List of schools in India#Karnataka and any other place in which it is mentioned. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - think we need to be careful before renaming. As far as I understand, Pre-university course colleges in Karnataka are not the same as schools, and this page appears to be discussing a school. Either way, it is probably doesn't make any difference - the institution(s) don't appear to have RS with significant coverage and WP:NSCHOOLS suggests that neither have implied notability. Unless someone can offer something that isn't just advertising or fluff - which is particularly important in the Indian context where there is a lot of competition in education - it is important to avoid WP being used for WP:ADVERTS JMWt (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments but reading through them it's not clear what you want to happen with this article. And, yes, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at AFD, it messes up our closing/relisting tool, XFDCloser.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it seems to me that the current consensus on schools is that they are not notable unless we can find very significant sources that discuss them at length. Which almost inevitably means 99% of school pages are not notable. JMWt (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It doesn't help that a lot seem to be created in an unsourced or barely sourced state and created by SPAs. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am still in favour of deletion as I am unable to find any decent sources for this institution. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:12, 25 February 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 03:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nosheen Ehtesham[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This can't be a Snow Keep with some editors advocating Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The subject participated and has won multiple international contests. Insight 3 (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NTENNIS. I acknowledge their importance in some circles but there's a reason the notability guidelines are like that, after all, this is Wikipedia, not Tennispedia Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 00:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failing/meeting NTENNIS at this point means absolutely nothing. What matters is if the topic passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - Surprisingly, the article doesn't tell that, but the subject has also received Tamgha-i-Imtiaz (Medal of Excellance) in 2003:Daily Times, Dawn Its a state award and definitely makes recipients notable per WP:ANYBIO. Insight 3 (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd rather not close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the 4th relisting. It was an oversight on my part. But because of the nature of the AFD daily logs, I don't believe a relisting can be undone. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The best sources are [38] and [39], which are trivial, and the rest are databases, listings, dead links, or irrelevant. The mentioned award is not "a well-known and significant award", so doesn't qualify for ANYBIO. The subject fails GNG and NTENNIS and does not have enough coverage for an article at this time. Avilich (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a "well-known" award but still has a Wiki page? Not a "significant" award but still president of the state confers and decorates it? Insight 3 (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How important is the award that Ehtesham won? Is it one of the highest honors in the country? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is one of the four orders of excellence in Pakistan. Insight 3 (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparently in the lowest tier of such awards, and the list of recipients in that page suggests not all of them are noteworthy. Also ANYBIO explicitly states that meeting one of its criteria "does not guarantee that a subject should be included", which is confirmed by the GNG and NTENNIS failure. Avilich (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My main concern is this is a BLP and I think the sourcing is not there. I don't think it clears the independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth test. BLPs need to be completely based on clearly independent unbaised RS about the subject. I don't believe this passes GNG, NTENNIS, or NBASIC.  // Timothy :: talk  06:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Tennis in Pakistan. These kind of players are usually notable but due to media bias it is hard to find coverage. Pakistani media was mostly offline when she played tennis and as there is no digitalized archive of Pakistani newspaper so the best coverage we have is already mentioned above. 175.107.237.193 (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated claims about media "bias" and "offline sources" don't change the fact that no SIGCOV is available, and SIGCOV is required per WP:SPORTBASIC. Avilich (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just an excuse, but a considerable fact that Pakistani English and Urdu newspapers from the 1990s and earlier, have not been digitized. This is why we have "additional criteria" for such biographies. A player who participated in the international contests and received a state award must have had more press coverage than that we now find on internet. Insight 3 (talk) 03:58, 4 March 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! 06:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Fouad Group of Companies[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP for lack of coverage. Unless someone can find coverage in Arabic. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm unable to locate and sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 21:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Revels Group[edit]

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

Soft-deleted a month ago per AFD1, the article was re-created today by what appears to be a sock of the original creator. Definite WP:COI editing (though that in itself is not a reason to AFD). No RS in the article that I recognize.   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Billboard is an interview with the pair, Forbes is what appears to be the landing page for an author. Rest of the sources are about as trivial or non-useful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just cheap spam. MarioGom (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe they'll try to read the basic rules then. Suitskvarts (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources meet NCORP/GNG criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 15:58, 28 February 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 procedural close, wrong venue. BD2412 T 01:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kwarteng[edit]

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

There's the Kwarteng (surname) article and although Kwasi Kwarteng is the most known in the UK, none of the three people in the article is known more than the others. Abdul Akter (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resego Kgosidintsi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Seems promotional. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 01:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as article creator. The subject appears to be a prominent figure in the Botswana women's rights movement, and she has significant coverage in Botswana-based news sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: One quick Google Search shows multiple secondary sources, which presumes that Notability is met. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Thebiguglyalien: and @1AmNobody24:- seems well-referenced, subject has significant coverage. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep her calls for legalisation of sex work and party position have given her a prominence in national politics with sufficient reporting to pass the GNG. I'd note that party youth leadership positions in Southern Africa are highly visible roles, more so probably than any other region. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:55, 1 March 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! 05:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Gokulam Movies[edit]

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

The article lacks sufficient references to meet WP:ORG . The references currently provided are mainly routine announcements regarding the company's future or past productions. Akevsharma (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_February_24&oldid=1143038261"