Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 25	February 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Li Yu-yun[edit]

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

She could very well become a notable tennis player but for now, she's 646th in the world in doubles and has only won junior titles in ITF Women's World Tennis Tour tournaments which are nowhere near as important as WTA tournaments. In any case, the most important thing is that she simply does not pass the the notability threshold. Pichpich (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Tennis, and Taiwan. Pichpich (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify Definitely fails WP:NTENNIS and GNG not achieved. Timothytyy (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with User:Timothytyy Fails WP:NTENNIS

PalauanReich (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Archive if possible. Justification: clearly fails WP:NTENNIS due to competing at 15k level, far lower the required 50k. She could become notable in the future. // MitYehor (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - currently falling short on WP:GNG and NTENNIS, may meet one of these in the not too distant future Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 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 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. Also, primary article's author blanked and G7 has been performed. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Roosevelt[edit]

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

NN journalist UtherSRG (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please delete the article. Philroose1 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Phil Roosevelt, and I would like the page deleted. Thanks for your efforts with it. Philroose1 (talk) 03:52, 27 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 Jagmeet Singh#Personal life. There is clear consensus that an article is not justified at this moment. Redirecting is a good ATD. Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gurkiran Kaur Sidhu[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:GNG. The article really only focuses on her marriage, and notability is assumed thereof (WP:BIOFAMILY), non-notable fashion company, with most references focusing on notable family members. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Politics, and Canada. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As article creator. I think the subject of this article meets WP:GNG due to the multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, examples include:
Indeed her wedding is the thing she is most notable for, but it is not the only thing she is notable for. E.g. item 2 above is literally pointing out eight things about her, item 4 above is about an ethics and corporate sponsorship issue.

WP:BIOFAMILY says Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. she is not mentioned in passing at all, she is the primary subject of the articles I cite above. So WP:BIOFAMILY does not direct us to delete this article, if anything it supports it being kept. CT55555(talk) 00:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the WP:WPWIR project here. CT55555(talk) 01:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fashion designer. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Dear @CT55555, I thank you for you Wiki contributions and I believe that you created this article in a good faith. However, the person is not notable. The sole presence of coverage doesn't guarantee notability. This person didn't do anything notable except one event, which contradicts WP:SBST. I am sorry to admit that I suspect the listed coverage to be WP:SPIP. Delete without a doubt. // MitYehor (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, noting the early preference for delete, if consensus continues towards not keeping the article, I would suggest a merging content and redirect to Jagmeet Singh as a WP:ATD. CT55555(talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Good try but I think its very very tenuous. scope_creep^Talk 16:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The ethics/corporate sponsorship issue is what tipped me over the line in thinking she was notable, not BLP1E etc, but BLP rules prevent me from putting that in the lead. CT55555(talk) 16:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CT55555(talk) 16:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Jagmeet Singh as an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD. Relevant facts and sources can be merged into her husband's bio, particularly into the Jagmeet Singh#Personal life section. If/when there is more coverage about her own achievements, the content could be split back out into a standalone article. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fashion designer fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to Redirect to Jagmeet Singh#Personal life since it seems this article is likely headed for deletion. Changing it to a redirect will 1) preserve the article content and sources in the redirect history, for future reference if needed; 2) allow people searching for Gurkiran Kaur Sidhu to quickly find relevant information about her (with 3k+ views in less than a month, there is clearly demand for more info); 3) discourage other editors from re-creating the article prematurely. Also, redirects are cheap per WP:CHEAP. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:13, 5 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 22:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Kart Racers[edit]

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

Video game that fails WP:GNG, relies to heavily on primary sources. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not asserted. Doing another web search, there seems to be a bit of coverage - however, the article still needs quite a bit of work. Weak keep. Silikonz💬 22:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Got reviews or previews from Kotaku, Kotaku Australia, and Multiplayer.it. While there are many "press release" seeming sources, I think it squeaks by notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more coverage of the game in Autoevolution [1], Gamereactor [2], TgCom24 [3], Marin Independent Journal [4]. Pocket Tactics has been inconclusive discussion wise in the past but [5] also exists. Passes WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Personally, I want this deleted, but I don't know much about video games so I won't cast a formal !vote. However, I would like to note that I strongly suspect the article creator is connected with 20th Century Fox or with Electric Square given their behaviour in the article, and if it is kept then it needs attention to ensure it is covered in an impartial manner. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Per @Zxcvbnm, I hate to say it but it got some coverage and playerbase. Found some German reviews as well [6]. If this article doesn't get expanded in a year, re-list. // MitYehor (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that once notability is established, it is permanent. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policy in question is WP:NEXIST. Things cannot be listed for AfD due to size or absence of sources in the article, if sources exist elsewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both Kotaku reviews seem like unambiguous WP:SIGCOV to me, and several other reviews have been linked above. I don't see any POV issues in the article as it currently stands. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the current state of the article obviously isn't great, the article's subject meets the third inclusion point of WP:NSOFT per the reviews provided by Zxcvbnm and Jovanmilic97. - Aoidh (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sourcing presented so far is enough to meet the GNG. Additionally, while the article creator has made some strange choices, the current makeup of the article is not overtly promotional. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep - Notability has been established per above with multiple independent sources which can be used to expand the article beyond its current state. COI issues can be raised directly to the respective editor. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:31, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Asylum monsters[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTN; list has no notability, as there are no reliable independent sources that discuss Asylum monsters as a group, and most (if not all) of the individual items are non-notable as well. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and spot-check. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn’t even an obvious article like “list of characters” Dronebogus (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kinda shocked this lasted so long, given that it's obvious WP:INDISCRIMINATE material. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The appropriate list to have is List of The Asylum films, and that already exists. TompaDompa (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the spot. I am puzzled how it lasted this long. Since these subjects do not pose as a group outside of individual film universes, ==> WP:NOTDATABASE. // MitYehor (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the descriptions of each one into their respectful films. Plus, half of the movies they come from don't have a full synopsis. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete failure of WP:LISTN. There are no sources that discuss this subject as a set or a group, and as most of these movies are completely unrelated to one another, it does not even make sense as a type of "character list" spinout article. Nearly the entire content of their list is completely unsourced and reads like WP:OR, so nothing should be preserved, merged, or redirected. Rorshacma (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:42, 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 merge to Tap and flap consonants. Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voiced velar tap[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously nominated by a sock, with incorrect reasoning, and therefore procedurally closed at once. Nevertheless, the article is neither adequately referenced, nor adequately referenceable, because it is based on a single idea of a recent PhD student in linguistics. It is Too Soon. Suggest merging? Elemimele (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three references, one is a pdf of a conference proceeding, which means it wasn't peer reviewed; the second is a peer-reviewed piece of primary literature by the same authors as the first, and is referenced to the first, and the third is a preexisting encyclopaedia making a passing reference to a flapped allophone; I lack the expertise to know if this is adequate to support a complete article. I suspect this is WP:TOOSOON. Elemimele (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"one is a pdf of a conference proceeding, which means it wasn't peer reviewed" - Proceedings papers for ACAL are in fact peer reviewed. Stephen MUFC (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information could also be accommodated in Tap and flap consonants, so merging would be preferable over simply deleting it. –Austronesier (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree completely. I like the idea of a merge, and was hoping for suggestions of an appropriate target. Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as reasonable and suggested to Tap and flap consonants. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 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 no consensus. A possible rename can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rönesans Rezidans[edit]

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

Non-notable apartment complex. Notability is not inherited from the notable people who were tragically buried under the rubble. Sources mostly cover it in the context of the earthquake, the arrest of its contractor, or the notable people who are missing or who were found dead in the rubble (such as Christian Atsu). There is very little coverage of the complex before the earthquake. The fact that there is no article on the Turkish Wikipedia is telling. Mooonswimmer 19:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The building itself is not notable, and known only for being part of a notable earthquake that affected notable people. Most of this article and its sources aren't really about the building itself, but the people in there or general information about the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake and its aftermath. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points made above. Nothing notable about the building. The fraudulent circumstances the building pertains to or its collapse aren't unique, too. I believe if we crop the details about the building and rewrite some parts to be more concise, we can easily end up with a sentence or two about its collapse and what it means, to be included in the article of the earthquake. Ayıntaplı (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What fraudulent circumstances? Gazozlu (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that the building itself isn't notable, it has been covered exceptionally well in Turkish media and academics following its collapse. Most of this can't be added to the main article. Is a revamp and move to something like Collapse of Rönesans Rezidans or Collapse of Rönesans Rezidans during the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake possible? ~Styyx^Talk? 10:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBUILDING, "Buildings (...) may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."

The building has been touted, also by international media, [7] [8] as having greater significance by being a symbol for the failure of developers to follow earthquake protection building standards, and has been covered as the primary topic of several articles as such. Also, the article concerns not just a building but also a disaster by itself with hundreds of death, such events are generally considered notable. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It was already somewhat notable before the earthquake as the first building of its kind in Hatay, and is very notable now after the earthquake during which it affected the lives of almost 1000 people of which many have unfortunately become casualties. Meets significant coverage.--Gazozlu (talk) 16:51, 22 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!} 22:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename. The collapse of the building clearly exceeds the bar of the general notability guideline. It has been the subject of sustained in-depth coverage across reliable sources, which is now available in the article. Indeed it is the focus of ongoing coverage in international media, see this recent piece by Financial Times. Yes it happened within the context of the catastrophic earthquake, but that does not change how we are to apply the notability guidelines, nor does it diminish the fact that the collapse of this specific building has become something of a cause celebre, receiving coverage that sets it apart from the thousands of other collapsed buildings in the region (bar a select few). Clearly due to the high-profile nature of this, this coverage will continue with the ongoing judicial process. Yes, the article needs some cleanup and possibly a rename to reflect that it is the collapse of the building rather than the building in and of itself that is notable, but that is not the focus of discussion during the AfD. Please note that I am not arguing that the notability of the collapse is inherited from its residents, it's just that the means through which this particular building has received more coverage is irrelevant to the fact that it passes the GNG. --GGT (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and possibly rename to Collapse of ...) There has been lots of ongoing coverage beyond a 24-hour news cycle, and it has been deep and multiple kinds of coverage. I started the copy-editing, but it needs quite a bit more. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry[edit]

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

This article on an association of dental professionals is poorly sourced. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added two references, but this reads as run-of-the-mill coverage and I don't think meets WP:NCORP. Tacyarg (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is sufficient supporting material now for an overall keep (see diff after my recent additions). I've removed a couple of paragraphs, marked one as wholly unreferenced and noted the citations in another section are all self-published ... each of those sections could be dropped without impact on the encyclopedic content, and could be re-added should good citations emerge. My thinking is that this is indeed a global, large professional association which targets a growing segment (at least in the United States) of elective medical procedures. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 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 keep and move to Li Wenxiang Star Mississippi 14:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Li Wenxian[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because there is no substantial coverage of Li Wenxian. The only known mentions of him are brief descriptions in crime encyclopedias. The most detailed mention of him is a one & a half page description in the book "Still at large : a casebook of 20th century serial killers who eluded justice" by Michael Newton. That's another weird thing. That book, an encyclopedia about unidentified serial killers came out in 1999, three years after Li was supposedly caught. Half of the time, the case is treated like it's unsolved. The other half, the case is treated like it is solved. The conflicting reports are a BLP concern, so I believe it should be deleted for that reason as well. Silent-Rains (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found. In addition to the strange inconsistency between sources that User:Silent-Rains has pointed out, it's weird that no one has been able to find any Chinese-language sources about the subject. I've looked but haven't found any. The sole source currently cited in the article gives a different name (Lu Wenxian instead of Li Wenxian) and seems questionable, as it claims that "it's unlikely that the world will ever hear" about any other Chinese serial killers, but we have articles about many others from before the source was published (look in Category:Chinese serial killers and subcats for more).

The lack of decent sources makes me wonder if this supposed "Guangzhou Ripper" is some kind of hoax perpetrated on or by Michael Newton. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sources published after the Guangzhou Ripper's 1996 death sentence:
  1. Schechter, Harold (2003). The Serial Killer Files: The Who, What, Where, How, and Why of the World's Most Terrifying Murderers. New York: Ballantine Books. pp. 119–120. ISBN 0-345-46566-0. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
    The book has a section about Li Wenxian. The book notes: "Information about serial murder in hard-line Communist societies is difficult to come by, since—according to official party propaganda—such heinous crimes is strictly a product of decadent Western capitalism and could not possibly exist in a people's republic. And indeed, the world might never have heard about the monster known as the "Guangzhou Ripper" if the hideously violated corpse of a young woman had not floated ashore in the then-British colony of Hong Kong in March 1992. The victim's body had been slit from throat to groin and her fingers sliced off. When authorities determined that the body had drifted in from the mainland, the outside world learned the truth ..."
    The book later notes, "The break finally came in November 1996, when a woman survived the Ripper's savage assault and identified her attacker as a construction worker named Li Wenxian, a onetime farmer who had migrated to Guangzhou in 1991, just prior to the start of the Ripper slayings. In custody, Wenxian confessed to all thirteen murders, exposing another discomfiting fact that clashed with the utopian mythology of the Communist state—that prostitution, as well as serial homicide, existed in China. A classic "harlot slayer," Wenxian had vowed revenge against all prostitutes after one of them—so he claimed—had cheated him of money shortly after his arrival in Guangzhou. Convicted of murder and rape, he was sentenced to death in December 1996."
  2. Michael Newton books:
    1. Newton, Michael (1999). Still at Large: A Casebook of 20th Century Serial Killers Who Eluded Justice. Port Townsend, Washington: Loompanics. pp. 104–105. ISBN 1-55950-184-7. Retrieved 2023-02-26 – via Internet Archive.
      The Still at Large book was published in 1999, but the killer was caught several years earlier. The author wrote on the "Acknowledgments" page, "Others who provided valuable input during 20 years of sporadic research, include ..." and the author wrote on page 5, "Every effort has been made to keep the text of Still at Large as accurate and up-to-date as possible. That said, I would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions." It is likely that the author had done research for this book over numerous years and did not learn that there was an update in the case in which the Guangzhou Ripper was caught. The book has outdated information but I would still consider it a reliable source for background about the case. In fact, Michael Newton corrected this in a book he published the following year (Newton 2000).
      The book has a case history titled ""Guangzhou Ripper" — China (1991–92)". The book notes: "Thus far, there has been press coverage of the crimes in China, marking the case as a "success" in terms of propaganda, even though the murderer remained at large. Chinese authorities ran out of luck in March of 1992, when a seventh victim washed ashore in the nearby British colony of Hong Kong. As described in the South China Morning Post, number seven had been slit from throat to stomach, then crudely stitched shut again, her fingers severed almost as an afterthought. Because no women were reported missing from Hong Kong, it was assumed the corpse had floated in from mainland China, and thus the "Guangzhou Ripper" was belatedly exposed."
    2. Newton, Michael (2000). The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. New York: Checkmark Books (Facts On File). pp. 139–140. ISBN 0-681-28940-6. Retrieved 2023-02-26 – via Internet Archive.
      The book has a section titled "Li Wenxian". The book notes, "Still the murders continued for another four years, some victims bludgeoned with a hammer in addition to being choked and stabbed repeatedly. Thirteen women were dead by November 1996 when the Ripper made his first make, leaving his latest victim alive. The woman identified her attacker as Li Wenxian, a one-time farmer from southern Guangdong province who had migrated to Guangzhou in 1991 and found work with a construction team. In custody, Li confessed to the attacks, telling police that he was motivated by revenge against all prostitutes, since one of them had cheated him a short time after his arrival in Guangzhou. Convicted by the Intermediate People's Court on charges of murder, rape, and robbery, Li was sentenced to death on December 18, 1996."
2. Sources published before the Guangzhou Ripper's 1996 death sentence:
  1. "Serial killer stalks city streets but press remains silent". Toronto Star. Reuters. 1992-05-31. Archived from the original on 2023-02-26. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
    The article notes: "He may well be the first mass murderer of his kind in China - but hardly a soul in Guangzhou has heard about him.Fear of copycat crime is only one reason why local police authorities have hushed up the case. They have never encountered a psychotic sex killer, and seem afraid to admit one could exist in socialist China. ... The "Guangzhou Ripper" has struck six times, each time leaving his distinctive mark, and doing his work so thoroughly that not one of the bodies has been identified. ... Since there were no reports of a missing young woman in Hong Kong, police speculated the body had floated from China, and the story of the "Guangzhou Ripper" broke in the local press."
  2. Chan, Gary (1992-03-02). "Police hunt 'Ripper' of Guangzhou". South China Morning Post. p. 3. ProQuest 1753802112.
    The article notes: "Hongkong and Chinese police are liasing in a bid to discover whether the murder of a young woman, whose horribly mutilated body was found in Tuen Mun last week, is connected with seven recent rape murders of prostitutes in Guangzhou. Every finger has been cut from the corpse found on Tuesday on the shore at Lan Kok Tsui. ... She is believed to be the seventh victim of the "Guangzhou Ripper" who has been terrorising the city since December. All seven were raped then killed in a similar manner. As Lan Kok Tsui is near Shekou, in Shenzhen, police believe the dead woman found in Hongkong may have been murdered in China and thrown into the sea."
  3. John Kohut's 1992 articles:
    1. Kohut, John (1992-06-14). "Canton Ripper's grisly record remains a secret". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2023-02-26. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
      The article notes: "There is a chilling ritual about the Canton Ripper as he goes about his grisly work. First he rapes his victims, then he strangles, suffocates or knifes them to death. In a final act of frenzy, the bodies are dismembered, stuffed into rice bags and dumped in rubbish bins in the sleazy suburbs of Canton. ... While the local press has not dared defy the news blackout, newspapers in nearby Hong Kong have not been so restrained and have reported any detail they can extract from the Cantonese police. The latest burst of publicity was in March, when the mutilated body of a young woman was discovered off the colony's shores."
    2. Kohut, John (1992-06-20). "China living in ignorance of the 'Guangzhou Ripper': A serial killer is stalking the streets of Guangzhou, yet the authorities are determined no one should know this. John Kohut reports". South China Morning Post. p. 22. ProQuest 1541290542.
      The article notes: "But the "Guangzhou Ripper" has one thing going for him which serial killers elsewhere do not. Thanks to a deeply ingrained Confucian-communist puritanism, sex crimes are not normally publicly reported in China, least of all while they are still under investigation. This means the killer's potential victims do not even know he exists. "If we reported the murders, it would cause terror among the masses," said Zeng Tiangui, a senior official in the Guangdong province police force. The Guangzhou Ripper is not China's first serial killer, but he is perhaps the only one to have made it into the newspapers – at least, foreign newspapers. While the state-run Chinese press has not dared to defy the official news blackout on the case, the media in Hongkong, fed by leaks from the Guangzhou police, have reported on the murders, most recently in March when the body of a young women was discovered off the shores of the territory, snagged on a rock."
    3. Kohut, John (1992-06-27). "China's 'Canton Ripper' at large". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2023-02-26. Retrieved 2023-02-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  4. The New Paper articles on 6 January 1995:
    1. "'Sold organs in market'". The New Paper. 1995-01-06. p. 6. Retrieved 2023-02-26 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
      The article notes: "Residents of Whangpo village fear they may have eaten the body parts of some of the Guangzhou Ripper's victims. Earlier last year, the Ripper quit his truck driver's job and started selling something in the village market. ... The Ripper's wife used to help out in the stall. Her whereabouts are not known. The police said he disposed of the body parts by throwing them into rubbish bins. They could not confirm if he cooked and sold any of them."
    2. "He kept body parts in jars". The New Paper. 1995-01-06. p. 6. Retrieved 2023-02-26 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
      The article notes: "When the police raided the house of the Guangzhou Ripper, they found dried female organs and breasts preserved in jars. They also found the body parts glued to mannequins inside his bedroom. ... The Ripper kept a meticulous record of his grisly deeds and his victims' particulars — name, age, dialect group, native village, vital statistics and date of murder — in a diary. He also videotaped himself having sex with the corpses. The diary and the videotapes were found in a secret compartment behind his bedroom wall."
    3. Chong, Yaw Yan (1995-01-06). "Guangzhou Ripper". The New Paper. p. 6. Retrieved 2023-02-26 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
      The article notes: "A truck driver, dubbed the Guangzhou Ripper, killed 14 women and cut out their private parts and preserved them. ... The ripper, 39, known only as Ah Piew to fellow villagers in Whangpo in China, was arrested by police last September after a four-year reign of terror. His victims were all prostitutes he lured home and then strangled, like the 19th-Century British killer, Jack the Ripper. ... He is married with two children — a girl, 12 and a boy, five. ... The breakthrough came when one of his victims escaped and led the police to his house." The article says its sources are Sing Tao Evening Post, Ming Pao, Ta Kung Pao, and Eastern Herald.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Guangzhou Ripper (also known as the Canton Ripper and Li Wenxian) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Cunard. As always, I'm impressed with your ability to find sources on obscure topics like these. Using some of the information that you quoted, I've managed to find sources in Chinese like this one. It seems that the subject's name is actually Li Wenxiang (李文香), not Li Wenxian — that's part of why I was having trouble. Mistransliterations like this are fairly common in southern China. I think we should keep and move to Li Wenxiang. 02:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a really good find. I was unable to find the subject's Chinese name during my search for sources, but through your excellent research skills you were able to find it. I agree that the article should not be at Li Wenxian as Li Wenxiang is the proper transliteration. An alternative is to move the article to Guangzhou Ripper as that might be the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject. But I looked at list of nicknames of serial killers, and it seems that most articles of the identified serial killers are titled by their actual names rather than nicknames. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cunard's comprehensive source list leaves no doubt that the subject passes the WP:GNG. Even beforehand, the inclusion in global crime books should have served as a warning that there would be no case whatsoever for deletion. The article is short because it had been slashed without good reason. With the new sources, some or all of the deleted texts should be included in the article again. gidonb (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Silent-Rains (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarvia Phillip[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:55, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arielle Fernandez[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:54, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Jarrold[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Croatia, and Latvia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine not indepth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage here so far is a little thin, but there are also hits at Google Books and Jstor, as we would expect with a British ambassador. The GNG is not of course anything to do with importance, so in theory I agree that an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but thanks to the coverage they get in their international role from journalists and academics in practice it would be pretty hard for one to achieve such obscurity. On the question of what is "routine coverage" for an ambassador, that is always going to be at a higher level than for less notable roles in life. The GNG gives this helpful definition: "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." Moonraker (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources help meet GNG? LibStar (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are no JSTOR hits. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find him named in various documents that list government appointments, and he gets some nice acknowledgements in introductions to books, but nothing that gives more than his name. If there is more it may well be in news sources from the countries he served in, such as Croatia. I have no access to that information. Lamona (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:52, 5 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 Weather modification#Proposed US legislation. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Modification Operations and Research Board[edit]

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

Not notable - for example a google search shows mainly copies of the article Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weather modification#Proposed US legislation which already has this content. This proposed government agency is not independently notable. Jfire (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fine by me Chidgk1 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weather modification#Proposed US legislation per Jfire. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:23, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Invicta Dynamos season[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2019–20 Invicta Dynamos season

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

This is an English semi-pro ice hockey team, and prior discussions have confirmed this level is not notable enough for a stand alone article. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyquan Terrell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [9], [10], and [11] among many more sources. Clearly significant figure in local Sant Kitts and Nevis football. Young already internationally capped player with ongoing professional career in Europe. Article needs impoprvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close to meeting GNG. First and third sources mentions him once and twice respectively, routine coverage. The link to the second source doesn't even mention the subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the second source that's titled 'Tyquan Terrell Scores Twice For Spanish 6th Division Football Club'??? Giant Snowman 21:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the first one from Goal. Not sure if its redirecting because I do not see the subject mentioned at all. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Goal source is titled 'Watching Liverpool's Mane made Tyquan Terrell 'hungry for goals' and mentions him throughout. Giant Snowman 21:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Goal source is OK but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1 has barely 2 sentences of independent coverage: The 22-year-old attacking sensation has risen through the ranks for Saint Kitts and Nevis, representing the Caribbean country at U20 and U23 level before making his senior international debut against Grenada in the Concacaf Nations League.
... the talented player, who has been scouted by several Major League Soccer outfits like Los Angeles FC, Minnesota FC United and FC Dallas,, N. 2 is an obvious press release from SKNFA, N. 3 has just a single sentence on Terrell, N. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with sources above. Disagree with analysis of references above.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please paste the sentences from those sources that you believe are independent secondary coverage of Terrell. JoelleJay (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG due a lack of significant coverage. goal.com is Terrell talking about his fave African player (who cares), source 2 isn't independent of Terrell and source 3 is a brief mention. Dougal18 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though I know the likely outcome, I will say this: the goal source mostly talks about his favorite player Sadio Mane, and has been scouted by teams like, Los Angeles FC, Minnesota FC United and FC Dallas. Tell me if this source is something or not, even though he's in the U-20 national team in 2017.[12] Ivan Milenin (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I found another source, where he scored a goal from a reliable source, the fact that his team was defeated and resulted in a relegation. Here it is: [13] Ivan Milenin (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This one is a difficult call. On one hand, the subject’s notability is tenuous, but on the other, it seems that there is some coverage. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage available online; only brief mentions can be found. Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:55, 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 no consensus. The discussion on whether to merge or move this can continue on the Talk page. A consensus is not going to emerge to delete this information from the project Star Mississippi 16:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of female World Rally Championship drivers[edit]

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

The references on this page are all of one source which does not confirm the gender of the drivers listed. With a quick search I cannot find a suitable source that can be used as a basis for this list. Whilst it appears as a nice to have list for some contributors, I don't think it meets the needs of verifiability or necessity and exists out of assumptions, which would constitute original research. Additionally, it has not been updated since Croatia 2022 - but I wouldn't know if it is needing it because there is no source. Maybe an article "Women in motorsport" or "Females in motorsport" would be better, given the sources that do exist - including the existence of a "women in motorsport" commission at the FIA. Discussion would be appreciated.

Rally Wonk (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment found this - each name can be re-checked from the database. Also Women through the decades FIA. -Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought Fandom to be a rip of Wikipedia although it appears there is extra information there. Still questionable. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fandom/Wikia are user-generated content and therefore cannot be reliable sources (just the same as how Wikipedia cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia). The FIA link is another general "women in motorsports" source. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 15:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is no general source (no source at all actually) for List of World Rally Championship drivers or List of World Rally Championship co-drivers either. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what purpose these particular lists serve when there are thousands of nominees, but at least they are a yes/no answer with database(s) as general reference. In context to the topic of discussion, there could be a list of left-handed drivers, but why? And how is it proven? Rally Wonk (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I've noticed some of these drivers have also entered cups and classes for Ladies or Women according to the source. The list could be improved by including that as a basis for inclusion, and removing those who don't meet it. But then the question remains of necessity of the list.

Rally Wonk (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This list and this list, many have only 1 (local) start. Maybe the inclusion criteria would be a minimum number of starts? ewrc-results (now for subscribers only) and juwra would help. Does it also make sense to include other notable entries (blue links)? Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, and Motorsport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems to satisfy the ...a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources WP:NLIST. Unlike comparison mentioned above "list of left-handed drivers" which does not. Examples I found include:

https://www.autosport.com/general/news/how-women-are-tackling-barriers-in-motorsport/10425377/
Williams, J. (2014). A Contemporary History of Women's Sport, Part One: Sporting Women, 1850-1960. United States: Taylor & Francis.
Naess, H. (2014). A Sociology of the World Rally Championship: History, Identity, Memories and Place. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bullock, J. (2002). Fast Women: The Drivers Who Changed the Face of Motor Racing. United Kingdom: Pavilion Books.

To the question of how we verify the gender of drivers, we would use what is said in reliable sources, I therefore think the concern about original research is not warranted. An articles about "women in motorsport" would be a nice addition to the encyclopaedia. "Females in motorsport" would be a bad title, as it is only humans who do motorsport and human females are best described as "women" CT55555(talk) 18:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2 and 4 appear to address the topic of women in motorsport. #3 might have WRC in the title at least, but in it he discusses gender within marketing, spectator culture and general perceptions of WIM. He only mentions a couple of women drivers, Mouton, Taylor, who are his sources for a wider topic chat of WIM. None of this is at all topical to WRC!

IMO these belong to an 'equality for women' topic or a WIM topic that doesn't exist. If the article World Rally Championship doesn't have anything on the topic of women/females in WRC because there's nothing to put*, this list isn't needed. If the list is notable, shouldn't there be something in the article, and what would that be?

(*other than a brief mention of the defunct, short-lived, 90s ladies cup which most of these women didn't compete in) Rally Wonk (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do respect this counter argument (that my sources are not exactly the topic) and I am now less confident in my keep !vote. I am reconsidering, weak-keep-reconsidering is probably a fairer representation of my current thinking. CT55555(talk) 15:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of World Rally Championship drivers. The contributor above me proves that this can be kept by WP:NLIST. CAN be kept, however, does not equal SHOULD be kept. The list is redundant but for a person's sex (as a general retrieval criterium rather than variable) and great work on the references (missing for everyone in the main). The difference between the lists is insufficient for a WP:SPINOFF. So please redirect and add a new m/f variable to the main list and the references from the female drivers list by way of merge. gidonb (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines exist to help us determine if subject merits an article. The question they answer is not can we create one, it is indeed should we create one (from WP:V). WP:NLIST is clear that notability is about the topic and the issue to consider is if the topic has been "discussed as a group or set": The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. To establish notability, I do not need to show a list the particular women currently in the article, I need to show you that in general female Rally drivers is a notable topic.

It is common to categorize sportspeople by gender (as opposed to left or right handed) and I assume we all know this, so any suggestion that this is an odd way to categorise drivers seems fragile. CT55555(talk) 05:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point was that there are more considerations than just notability, on which we two do agree. If other considerations still make the option undesirable we should not choose it, even if we can by NLIST. The can was in my opinion document-specific, and the should integrative. Also, obviously, nothing is inherently wrong with lists of sportswomen. Au contraire. We agree on many points, just not on the conclusion. I do not see it as a problem. gidonb (talk)

I'm glad we both agree on notability. In that context, I'll say no more. CT55555(talk) 15:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I was the first to agree that WP:LISTN is met! gidonb (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It is common to categorize sportspeople by gender"

This would make more sense in sports that are gender segregated, which is most sports! Rallying and WRC (this topic) are not. There are no men's cups and wherever there are ladies/womens' cups in other championships, they are not denied entry into the main 'mixed' competitions. It says here:

"As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition. Example: Category:Male golfers and Category:Female golfers should both be subcategories of Category:Golfers, but Category:Ice dancers should not have gendered subcategories."

Except for a Ladies' Cup that ran in the early 90s - which is not primarily - WRC is not segregated thus gender has no specific relation to the topic, same as Ice Dancers.

Same source: "Inclusion of people in a category related to GREDS must be based on reliable sources." I'm not sure we have that. We don't even have a List of women in motorsport or List of female rally drivers where eWRC could be useful as a source. But I wouldn't even say rallying or motorsport is primarily segregated to warrant these lists.

Also, unlike List of sportswomen where every subject is a blue link containing biographies, few of the subjects here have their own articles which raises the question of whether it's useful at all. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editing guideline you link to WP:CATGRS is for creating categories. This is a different topic, there is a guideline for creating lists, which I've referenced.

You make a good point about inclusion criteria. I would support a change that included only notable women drivers. I think that would be a good thing and consistent with most list articles that I've seen. But that is an editing decision, not an AFD issue. I am informed by WP:ATD when I say that we should not delete something when improving it is a possible alternative outcome. CT55555(talk) 15:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge a short and sourced list to unreferenced and incomplete list (full list would be hundreds or thousand+ entries)? Where in Wikipedia are lists/wikitables with m/f variables? Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a problem with these either. I do see a problem with lists that are so much overlapping. gidonb (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CT55555(talk) 05:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per available sources and comments above. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, expand to prose ~~and rename to Women in motorsports Women in rallying~~ - Sources 1, 2 & 4 provided by CT55555 do not satisfy LISTN for a topic specifically of female World Rally Championship drivers, but provide enough context for a general topic on women in motorsports. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find this agreeable. CT55555(talk) 05:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that work on said Women in motorsports article can happen regardless of the outcome of this AfD. I would wait until it closes though, personally. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would pedantically suggest Women in motorsport too, given the sources and wp precedent (see Motorsports). I added a RA of that title under Social sciences/Women's studies. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is okay with me! - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that the creation of that article can happen regardless of the outcome of this Afd, so a bit irrelevant vote in this discussion. Basically completely different content. Would be more suitable if we'd discuss about List of female racing drivers. Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pelmeen10 If you can explain how the sources provided here meet LISTN specifically for WRC drivers as opposed to generally about women in motorsports, I'm all ears. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LISTN: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. - has women in World Rally Championship been discussed? Obviously. Dozens here about WRC; [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Or do a Google search with "Michele Mouton" (2 million hits) - they never forget to mention female in WRC. Take any of her interviews. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking about the sources already provided by you and CT55555, not for new ones. My questioning of those ones is still valid, and with the introduction of these new ones, I now have to ask: why is this even a list and not a full article? My first answer I can think of here is "not all of these are for the World Rally Championship proper, but for support categories." In which case we can rename to "Women in rallying". These new sources don't change my opinion that this article should not be a list, however I now accept that keeping the topic scope on Rallying (the discipline, not the World Rally Chmpionship league) is perfectly fine. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 19:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An entry in the support championships cannot happen without an entry in the overall World Rally Championship. Rally Wonk (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that given the sources, a potential "Women in rallying" article might well end up merged into Women in motorsport as a section anyway. But with that I yield the floor to the Rally experts and will go back to IndyCar :] - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far we only have championship-based lists. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me these sources sound like justification through keywords but not meaning. For example, the sponsored Karlsson presser is just matter-of-factism that the crew are female, the text makes no relevant point. It's a good source for her specific inclusion but doesn't make the list topic notable. For it and the other sources, the topic inferred is always and every time, WIM - the phenomenon of gender in society, where motorsport is the arena in society. Even the Ladies of Monte piece is an excerpt from a motorsport book galled Girl Racers. WIM, IMO, is what the authors of the articles are eluding to when they decide to type something. "she became to be one of Britain's top female rally drivers being able to compete with the men on equal terms" - mentions the discipline of rally but is still WIM. Even "Wahome makes history as first female WRC3 winner at Safari Rally" is WIM, because Wahome cannot be a winner of afemale WRC3.

WRC is just a competition with specific rules which enables that level of motorsport. Like I said further up, one can't give any text for what's notable about any gender division in specifically the WRC championship, never is it that women do different stages or have to drive slower cars etc, or women's cups and classes now.

I'm not telling you your view is wrong, I just don't follow that because we can prove entries can be in a cross-category list we need to have the list, especially when it could be a sub-category of another list that doesn't exist!

Post script: all of the co-drivers and pre-73 Ladies of Monte wouldn't even make this list, and the Munnings article came out before she started her one rally WRC career. Rally Wonk (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse GNG for articles and LISTN. All the coverage including "she achieved this" or "was first to achieve that", "is exceptional because she is a woman" is way pass LISTN. But as most of the participants here rather want to see an actual article, I remind that a good list is supported by prose, not just bunch of names - take a look at other female racing drivers lists: 24hLeMans, F1, Indy500, NASCAR. In recent years there have been lots of female WRC co-drivers, with good coverage about it in media. Thats where I'd draw the line, "female drivers and co-drivers in WRC". Women in motorsport is clearly too broad in our discussion context, just as well would you vote "delete and create a new article" (who though?). Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those lists, didn't know they existed - had no reason to. Only Nascar made sense to me because of Drive for Diversity but hey. Ultimately, if other people want to see this and these lists then fair enough, it goes. That I don't understand the appeal is why I'm here. I wish I could ask all for personal opinions away from all the WP content policies, why does it matter? But I won't.

Individual's careers, results and achievements belong in biographies and season reports to me. I wasn't proposing a Women in Motorsport be about that unless it was relevant to all the organisations, initiatives and programs, the FIA commission etc etc, and any scientific papers on gender studies/sociology/sexism etc etc on the subject that apply, to jobs in the industry, grid girls, promotion and marketing... a conversation for elsewhere. Rally Wonk (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was similarly unaware of these very well done articles. That should be the standard to which this article strives to be. Mostly prose, with organized lists if needed at the end. I will strike and adjust my !vote in light of this. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 01:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a good list to have. The article proposed above would also seem useful. DeathStarArchitect (talk) 19:43, 21 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) 18:00, 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 redirect to National University, Bangladesh#Academic departments. Viable AtD Star Mississippi 16:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United College of Aviation, Science & Management[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over a year. Searches of the usual types found no independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage that would pass WP:NSCHOOL. I don't see an obvious redirect/merge target, but am open to suggestions. It's one of thousands of colleges affiliated with National University, Bangladesh, and is located in the Uttara suburb of Dhaka. Neither of those articles mention it, and their existing lists, to which it could in theory be added, may already constitute excessive detail for those topics. Worldbruce (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to National_University,_Bangladesh#Academic_departments. Opposed to merging, but don't see any harm from redirection if truly affiliated with NUB. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:18, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panayiotis Constantinou[edit]

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

Stats stub on a former footballer with no evidence towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources found in the Greek language were Phile News, a copy of a press release from his employer with no depth at all, and Kerkida (translated), a brief announcement about him being named in a squad. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As usual a near-exhaustive WP:BEFORE search for this nom. I've got nothing to add, fully agreed. --GGT (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:54, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Wigan[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be one of a number of drive-by nominations of British ambassadors. For me, the article in Times of Israel alone is enough to comply with the WP:GNG. The GNG is nothing to do with importance, so in theory an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but thanks to the coverage they get in their international role from journalists and academics it would be hard for one to achieve such obscurity. And what may be "routine coverage" for an ambassador is at a higher level than for less notable roles. The GNG gives this helpful definition: "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." Moonraker (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant posting and enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's practically axiomatic that the ambassador to Israel of any Permanent Member of the Security Council is going to be notable. Some SIGCOV RS from a five minute search: Jewish Chronicle Jewish Chronicle Jerusalem Post. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn any ambassador to Israel of any Permanent Member of the Security Council is going to be notable.Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:55, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Misra[edit]

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

He is winner of an initiative Lead India which was conducted by The Times of India and The Times Group. Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find independent coverage about him.

Let's do source analysis :-

1- The Times of India - Not Independent
2- The Times of India - Not Independent
3- The Scholars' Avenue - An Interview
4- MyBangalore - An Interview
5- The Times of India - Not Independent
6- Website owned by The Times Group - Not Independent
7- The Times of India - Not Independent
8- Ryze - Unreliable since a social networking site
9- The Times of India - Not Independent
10- Election Affairs - Doesn't seems reliable
11- The Times of India - Not Independent
12- Citizen Matters - Interview
13- Bangalore Mirror - Not Independent (Sister Newspaper of The Times of India)

𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails per WP:NBASIC and WP:NPOL, primary and unreliable sources. ToI is independent source but in his case counts as primary. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ToI is not independent from the subject as ToI has CoI with him as Misra has won Lead India which was conducted by The Times of India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:57, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fiaz Warraich[edit]

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

Non-notable, unreferenced, declined bio which has been copy & pasted into main. May be a CSD candidate but no exact criteria. Draft has also been declined (Draft:Fiaz Warraich) further after C&P move. Eagleash (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only his TikTok found when searching in Urdu, I presume this is an autobiography Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sir this person walknown in faisalabad if send magazine copy you.(Toiler International Trade Magazine Faisalabad) Amirusman6700 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found nothing to meet WP:JOURNALIST. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete unsourced non notable, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sir this person walknown in faisalabad if send magazine copy you.(Toiler International Trade Magazine Faisalabad) 137.59.225.60 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I moved this from Special:Diff/1141745143 as this forum is clearly the intended location. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Basically unverifiable. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:58, 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 speedy keep. Nonsensical rationale with no evidence. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voiced velar tap[edit]

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

A velar tap is impossible. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 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. Only minimal participation after 3 relists. No prejudice against a renomination after 1-2 months. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biafra Nations League[edit]

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

I am probably neutral on the notability of the organization, but not much as changed since consensus was to delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biafra Nations Youth League. Created by a SPA account BiafraBnL. HandsomeBoy (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 5 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) 23:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of generating further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable, based on my searches, considering WP:GNG, examples include:

https://saharareporters.com/2022/04/16/cameroonian-military-kills-biafra-nations-league-commander
https://dailypost.ng/2023/02/17/pro-biafra-militants-attack-oil-vessel-kill-2-near-cameroon/

CT55555(talk) 15:21, 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 speedy deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 11:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JayTime[edit]

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

Non-notable musical artist; moved to draft but returned to main without much, if any improvement. Search reveals little additional coverage - the typical social media and non-RS streaming sites. Only source is to own website. Eagleash (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Fashion, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure and unadulterated promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:51, 27 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 Political fiction. Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in fiction[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced list with an overly broad scope, it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:IPC, WP:NLIST, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Political fiction. List is too broad and lacks references. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOL I thought these would just be examples of media about politicians and governments and elections, but it has so many things where they make less significant appearances or just make commentary on it, like the Dark Knight, Orange is the New Black, and Pearls Before Swine. Being that broad this could be so much longer! Reywas92^Talk
Redirect to Political fiction as a viable alternative to outright deletion. I agree with the nom and other commenters that a standalone page is unjustified as the list is too broad, insufficiently sourced, and in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:IPC, and WP:NLIST. Sal2100 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Valid search term for our core readership. Current article close to WP:TNT and/or WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 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 no consensus. A possible redirect can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanika Minor[edit]

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

Lacks WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E and WP:REFERENCE. She isn't (in my opinion) prominently known as a criminal in public nor enough in the same route as other publicly-known criminals. I also suggest a speedy delete. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 21:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Crime. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage - at most redirect to FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. The call for a 'speedy delete' is ludicrous and embarrassing. Giant Snowman 21:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirct to FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, 2010s. While it certainly does not fail WP:GNG or WP:REFERENCE, it is within the scope of WP:BLP1E, and by that policy, should be redirected to the most wanted list as the closest thing to an event article. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 23:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have decided to apologize for such a disruptive AfD prediction without reviewing or realizing. If I deserved to be put down for it, then I deserve it. I respect whatever response you throw at me out of this. I cannot lie and say "it was an accident", but I will admit that it was an unthinkable decision. I hope you all understand whether you accept my apology or I'd be blocked from editing on Wikipedia because of this ever again. I'm very sorry. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 01:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that deep, don't worry - it's a misguided/misunderstood nomination rationale, it's not the end of the world! Giant Snowman 09:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which way to vote on this one, so I won't. The speedy delete comment was disagreeable, but don't beat yourself up, we all make mistakes. Be kind to yourself. Peace. CT55555(talk) 00:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the coverage is over an extended period of time, so technically she's notable. I am not of a hard and fast opinion, however. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:15, 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 delete. The "delete" !votes present a convincing argument that the German sources do not meet GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kröni[edit]

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

I can't see any credible reason why this person should be considered notable. I'll bet (I've little German but enough to read the titles) that most of the refs are about his 'business'. And I do not consider the Forbes list a real claim of notability; lists of this type are legion and I would estimate that a good fifty percent if people featured in them sink without trace TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like enough media independent coverage for establishing the subject's significance. The media are good and reliable in Switzerland and of national level. --Loewstisch (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Most of the Forbes' lists are complete garbage, this being one of them. I think there are like 1500 of them now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Forbes lists are garbage, however German language news coverage (in addition to forbes) within the article is not superficial and rather good. Notability is visible. Mozzcircuit (talk) 11:52, 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) 17:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have made some minor edits to the article. The person is kind of notable Switzerland-based person and the article has enough sourcing. In my point of view, Zürichsee-Zeitung, St. Galler Tagblatt, Limmattaler Zeitung, Handelszeitung, etc, are enough German-language media independent coverage.--იაკობ მახარაძე (talk) 09:19, 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) 10:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have the same position that I've already stated above. Kind regards,-იაკობ მახარაძე (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Someone with as many edits as you have should know by now that you shouldn't !vote twice in an AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing enough significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per German language weblinks which show a proper media coverage in Swiss national big news outlets. However, maybe some shortening of the company is preferred. Rodgers V (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodgers V: which "Swiss national big news outlets" do you see providing coverage here? I only see regional newspapers covering this like Zürichsee-Zeitung and one in Limmattaler Zeitung / St. Galler Tagblatt. --hroest 19:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no major coverage in national news outlets like Tagesanzeiger or NZZ, the main coverage is in regional outlets like Limmattaler Zeitung and St. Galler Tagblatt (they both re-print the exact same article which is common since they are owned by NZZ) - so overall I only see two newspaper articles one in Zürichsee-Zeitung and one in Limmattaler Zeitung / St. Galler Tagblatt and both are quite regional coverage; basically they cover the same event (winning the TV show). Also note that the article is in the Aargau regional section of the Tagblatt so likely not even distributed to all 100k readers but rather a subset of them. So I dont see any significant coverage over a longer period of time. Maybe this is WP:TOOSOON and if further coverage emerges beyond the one time event I think an article would be appropriate. --hroest 19:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is regional or local, startups with fawning coverage are a dime a dozen. Sandstein 16:36, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of heirs to the Monegasque throne[edit]

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

The article contains error and invention from start to finish and all the citable material is already at Monaco succession crisis of 1918 and Succession to the Monegasque throne. DrKay (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. DrKay (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I never seen the use for such lists, let alone the fact that "heir" is the wrong terminology in those page titles. The correct terminology is "heir-apparent" or "heir-presumptive". Anyways, best we limit royal lists to monarchs & consorts. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly renamed) The article is in fact a list of heirs apparent or presumptive to the throne. It is as legitimate as a List of Princes of Wales for the English/British throne or List of Dauphins for the kings of France. On the whole I would keep the name, leaving the issue that they are apparent or presumptive to be dealt with in the lede. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with this statement. The article needs some work and cleaing up, especially visually, but it is useful. EmilySarah99 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superfluous. We already have Succession to the Monegasque throne for the heirs, List of rulers of Monaco for the heirs who ascended to the throne, and those who didn't make the cut don't merit notice. Monaco is not a big/important enough state as to draw comparisons to the Prince of Wales or Dauphin. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced (unsourced in fact). We usually have lists on rulers and monarchs, the majority of whom were heirs before ascending to the throne, so there is a lot of overlap right there with List of rulers of Monaco. And this cannot be compared to Prince of Wales, Prince of Asturias, Dauphin of France, or Duke of Brabant. Those are 'specific titles' bestowed upon heirs to the throne. As far as I know, no such titles exit for the Monegasque heirs. And, in the absence of any sources it is hard to determine whether the people listed were actually named heirs or is it just the author's assumption that they held the position. Not to mention the other WP:OR issues raised by the nominator. Keivan.f^Talk 22:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially this is a WP:FORK of existing articles, and unsourced at that. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speck of Gold[edit]

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

The artist's article, Afterlife (musician), was deleted years ago for not being notable. The article has been tagged for being unsourced since 2009. It doesn't appear to have charted or have any other coverage easily found through a Google search. As there is no target to redirect it to, nominating for deletion. Ss112 10:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination plus my finding no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing beyond the usual streaming and retail services, and since the musician's article did not survive on WP, neither should this album article. Could also be speedy deleted per WP:A9. (But note that the musician got deleted via an expired PROD, rather than a full debate.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find any distinguished mentions of this album besides self-generated like discogs. With that in mind, article screams WP:INDISCRIMINATE and it is an oversight that it survived this long. // MitYehor (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced LP from a NN band. Normally, I would go for a redirect to the artist's article, but in this case, there's no good target; a possible redirect to Music in 2004 makes no sense to me. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did my own search and found no WP:SIGCOV by independent third party WP:RS that would establish WP:NOTABILITY or satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST or WP:NBIO. Shawn Teller (talk) 06:12, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Franziska Hagemann[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP. Searches in ProQuest, DDG, Google News, Google Books and all-in.de all failed to yield significant coverage of a footballer of this name. Best I can find is Welt Kompakt and DFB. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Happy to withdraw if anyone can provide clear evidence of SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that Hagemann only made a few Bundesliga appearances with Turbine Potsdam before moving to a really poor promoted side (Tebe) where she featured regularly until the club was relegated. The remainder of her career was in the 2.Bundesliga or regional leagues. I found a brief blurb/interview about her career in Morgenpost but it's not enough by itself. There is trivial coverage like a match report where she scored a goal for Tebe, and single name drop in an article about players joining Turbine Potsdam II. I'll look a bit more, but it doesn't look promising. Jogurney (talk) 04:37, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lenox[edit]

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

This musician worked with famous people, but all the coverage I can find on him is a short obituary in The Independent. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently he was playing a keyboardist at Woodstock so a deeper search sources is needed. scope_creep^Talk 10:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a pretty thorough search and, apart from the AFP obit which got republished in a few places, everything that turned up was the definition of "passing mention". This was the most in-depth thing I found and it's just a mention of an upcoming concert. I have a feeling he might have had more notability in France but the French article doesn't have much either. The obit is reasonably compelling but probably not enough on its own. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a very short review of one of his albums in Variety from 1978 and an interview on NPR in 1994. Still not much though. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:23, 17 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) 08:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 10:07, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amirul Shafik[edit]

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

Article twice deleted and now salted under Amirul Syafik. There was clear consensus here and here. Having searched again, I still don't believe that Syafik/Shafik meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Of the 3 references used in this article, 2 don't even mention him and the other is a passing mention. The external link of Soccerway doesn't count towards SPORTBASIC, as it is a database source. Malaysian searches of "Amirul Shafik" and "Amirul Syafik" do not yield any decent coverage. Best sources are Malay Mail, Utusan and Kosmo, none of which address Amirul in any detail whatsoever so I am sending this to a third AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- I encountered issues on language barriers while looking for source to support or give my assertion on this subject, would suggest an editor who understands and can read it language to search on Google or better still draftify Epcc12345 (talk) 00:31, 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 merge to Fallout (series). Sandstein 08:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deathclaw[edit]

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

I'm having hard time nominating this article for deletion. Article fails notability thou. GlatorNator (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well cited, and the reception section features multiple reliable sources noting the sheer popularity of the deathclaw and the high profile antics players like to use it for. I don’t see how this fails notability guidelines. Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale amounts to WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. Perhaps ever so slightly more effort could be expended going through the existing sources and explaining why they are not proof of notability. While the sources are not exactly the greatest, mods that allow players to tame Deathclaws got much publicity from the gaming press, to the point Bethesda changed tack and made it possible officially ingame via DLC, showing their huge popularity. There's also this article, which, while from a content farm and not counting towards notability, can at least be used to provide lore information in the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also fleshed out the article just now with an additional, totally new book-based WP:RS that was not there before. If notability was unclear before, I don't think it is now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to whatever is appropriate. While there are a number of sources that have Deathclaw in the title, the actual aspects that define Deathclaw as a notable figure seems to be in passing. For instance, the maze sources are about the maze, not the Deathclaw, and nothing in the articles even really comments on the Deathclaw specifically. The adoption comments are pretty mild, with all of it easily summed up in a sentence about Deathclaw's popularity for players adopting creatures. The Xbox source calling them one of Fallout's deadliest enemies is pretty weak too. Overall, the reception section is rife with content that seems like it has been made to look more substantial than it actually is in order to justify the article. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge to a new section about it in Fallout (series)? Possibly something like “reoccurring elements”? Dronebogus (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone have access to Abbey, Kristen L. "Self-Reliance in Fallout 4: Environmental Humanities in Serious Gaming." Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities 9, no. 1 (2021): 80-106. doi:10.1353/res.2021.0010. I can see Deathclaw mentioned in preview, but can't tell if this is SIGCOV or not. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Sadly, I don't. The journal looks very minor, not indexed in anything I checked. Their website is powered by Wordpress, they have no institutional affiliation (although their three editors seem to have). And they are not open access. Their impact is probably close to zero. I am not saying they are unreliable, but they are effectively one step above being a non-entity as far as both science and the rest of the world are concerned, IMHO. My point is, that an article published in such a journal is not going to be particularly good, to say the least. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to some parent Fallout article. Coverage is in passing or low quality (gaming listicles, etc.). I am not impressed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nonsensical AfD nomination with no coherent deletion rationale provided by the OP, or any genuine attempt to articulate why the topic does not meet the standards set by WP:GNG. Haleth (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the people proposing merging or redirecting are doing so based on the nominator's rationale, instead arguing that it doesn't meet the basic notability baseline. If this was actually speedily kept, I'd just end up renominating it myself with a proper rationale, so doing so would just be a waste of time. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring specifically to the OP's deletion rationale (or lack of one to be precise), which does not comply with Wikipedia's deletion policy and should've been speedily closed as keep by a passerby editor at the first instance. It's absolutely your prerogative as to whether concerns over the notability of the topic has any merit, or to pursue any course of action (AfD/merge) that leads to a standalone page for this article be taken off mainspace. Haleth (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The OP did give a rationale, specifically #8 in the deletion policy, "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". While no guideline was specified one might assume they are talking about WP:GNG. So I'd actually argue why it should be kept source wise rather than trying to procedurally speedy keep, because it's not speedy keep material. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But no reason was ever provided as to why the article's subject fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. The admin who relisted this discussion also found the OP's deletion rationale to be unsatisfactory. Haleth (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Piotrus and MsDusa. Should probably merged into Fallout (series)#Series overview. OceanHok (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rd I'm not seeing the cultural impact that generally justifies this type of article. Passing coverage and not even the most memorable monster in its own series. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m team centaur! Dronebogus (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, disappointed with the so-so deletion rationale. No support for Deletion some editors advocating Keep, and would those arguing Keep or Merge specify a target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I guess Fallout (series). The article's contents could be incorporated in some way, but for now it could just as well be redirected. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fallout (series). No out-of-universe impact to justify a standalone article. The non-trivia can and should be sufficiently covered in context within the parent article. A series fictional element needs standalone coverage to justify standalone treatment independent of its series. A completed version of the parent article would have a complete overlap with the content to be covered in this child article. czar 04:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit ridiculous to say "no out-of-universe impact" when the character is mentioned in a real book and numerous articles about real fans modding Deathclaws into the game, but I digress. It feels like this statement was made without so much as a read over the article with how vague it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But a number of the mentions of Deathclaw modding aren't even about the Deathclaw, they're about the maze that the Deathclaw is in. And being mentioned in a book is not itself a significant example of notability (or even necessarily an example). - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fan tributes within the series clearly fall within "in-universe" impact. If the point of this character article is its role within the series and its fandom, we already have a dedicated article on that topic that fits this content sufficiently. czar 07:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fallout series, or another valid target. The critical reception is more of a passing description of the characters, and not really a significant reception. Even the fan reception seems to mention the Deathclaw only in passing. The Deathclaw probably deserves mention as part of a larger, higher quality article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:53, 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 Dee Snider. Sandstein 08:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Hair with Dee Snider[edit]

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

Not enough coverage for independent notability. Might be worth merging with Dee Snider, though some information here is also already there so I suppose it depends on how valuable the rest looks. QuietHere (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and United States of America. QuietHere (talk) 06:08, 19 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!} 07:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speaking as someone who's not really interested in Snider or hair metal, even I've heard of the House of Hair, and I'd be surprised if a show that's on 200 stations, hosted by a highly notable musician, and has been around for 25 years hasn't generated at least enough coverage to pass GNG. That said, a search for sources is tough, given the amount of promotional content radio stations put out. I'm seeing some decent sources in a newspapers.com search, but not quite enough. I suppose default to merge/redirect, but this really should be doable... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dee Snider. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. No independent sources about it on my WP:BEFORE. SBKSPP (talk) 08:34, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Bahrozyan[edit]

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

Poor sources lacking independent coverage of the subject. Doesn't pass WP:GNG for me. Uhooep (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that deletion is appropriate here. Kwkintegrator (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete for lack of content / RS. --hroest 04:05, 5 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 Meitei folktales. Sandstein 08:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Folktales of Manipur[edit]

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

No sources found. Google Scholar only turns up one article which only briefly mentions the book. Google finds nothing too. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing indeed. Could have just been a WP:PROD, honestly. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article Meitei folktales. This will save its information from getting lost as well as solving the notability issue. --Haoreima (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is translated from simple English wikipedia. The simple English wiki equivalent article got merged into simple:Meitei folktales.
merge per user:Haoreima reasoning jengod (talk) 04:03, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Mendoza[edit]

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

Two-time Olympic swimmer who did not medal. Only one reference currently in the entry. No presumed notability under current WP:NOLYMPICS standards nor any WP:SIGCOV that I could find. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Philippines. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a gold medalist at the Southeast Asian Games. (The article should have emphasized this instead of his participation in the Olympics.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Tito Pao, this person passes WP:ATHLETE. // MitYehor (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MitYehor, for my information could you please point to the part of NATHLETE that backs this? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current WP:ATHLETE guidelines, as the stand, are too American-centric (or American-influenced centric). Under those criteria and considering Philippine conditions, athletes who won at national school/collegiate competitions like the UAAP or NCAA or the Palarong Pambansa (because of WP:NSEASONS) would be worthy of articles , as well as the likes of Margielyn Didal and Onyok Velasco (because of WP:OLYMPICS), but not anyone who won the events from the Asian Games or South East Asian Games. (Neither would Commonwealth Games medalists.) It is not only the Americas or Western European leagues or Olympics that deserve to have articles of winning athletes. The current guidelines ignore/omitted the possibility that even continents or subcontinents can have Olympics-style events and some of these events' winners would eventually go move on to higher levels of competitions, even the Olympics perhaps. (See Hidilyn Diaz, whose article was already around since the time that she was just a mere participant at the 2008 Olympics and when her highest award was a bronze medal at the 2007 SEA Games...under your argument, her article should have been deleted even though it took her 13 years before winning a gold medal. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that absent a special notability guideline, current consensus requires demonstration of significant coverage: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline." (From WP:ATHLETE, emphasis in the original.) So I do not see how this entry yet satisfies consensus: there are now three secondary sources in the entry, but one includes only a single sentence about the subject and another just three sentences. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the argument be for expand then instead of delete? --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s incumbent on people who think a subject should have a standalone article to show that sufficient sources exist, per WP:GNG and WP:NRV. What you propose would mean literally every topic just needs expanding, regardless of whether sufficient sources exist to meet our notability standard. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: WP:ATHLETE doesn't have a swimming-specific discipline guideline, BUT making an analogy from other disciplines like WP:SKATER or WP:NBAD, winning a gold medal at an international competition such as Southeast Asia Games would warrant article preservation. Is your main argument that this figure doesn't pass WP:GNG? MitYehor (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, my argument is that absent a special notability guideline that offers the presumption of notability, then an entry needs to pass GNG. Lenticel has turned up sources I was unable to find; honestly I still find it somewhat borderline, for most BLPs this level of sourcing might not pass AfC for instance but it’s certainly a significant improvement. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tito Pao's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with Philippine Star and Manila Standard both WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Jevansen (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources including newspapers of record such as New Straits Times and multiple Philippines newspapers. Winner at SE Asian Games. I don't understand why a simple search was not done before nomination by an experienced editor, but we all make mistakes. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: please do not presume; Miguel Mendoza is a common name and I went through four different iterations of searches turning up nothing about this subject. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination specifically mentions that I looked for coverage. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ATHLETE per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:05, 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 merge to Meitei folktales. Merging as an ATD (although I have problems with the target article displaying correctly). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stories from Fungawari Singbul[edit]

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

Obviously not notable. A Google search for the book turned up no sources, and if the book isn't notable, a list of stories in the book isn't notable either. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. The title of the book has a total of two hits on google scholar, and I found a review that does not appear to be WP:RS, nothing else. -- asilvering (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article Meitei folktales. This will save its valuable information from getting lost as well as solving the notability issue. --Haoreima (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is translated from simple English wikipedia. The simple English wiki equivalent article got merged into simple:Meitei folktales.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see no evidence of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 04:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 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 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iyanla Bailey-Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV (coverage is routine and databases). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:54, 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsey Harris[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't covered in WP:RS other than brief mentions. Justwatchmee (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject has no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY and lacks WP:SIGCOV. If either of those conditions were met, there would be somewhat of a case for satisfying WP:GNG and thus for keeping the article. However, I was unable to find anything to support WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS on my own thorough search. Shawn Teller (talk) 00:45, 5 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.