Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Safilo Group#History. Daniel (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Vedovotto[edit]

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

Businessman BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - coverage is largely routine articles about appointments or interview-based pieces. Therefore the subject lacks in-depth coverage from independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The New York Times was really from the International Herald Tribune and only is a brief biography, but I can't see any context around it. The Journal du Dimanche seems to talk about him opening a new building (but it's paywalled about halfway down the article). The Rebublicca seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most coverage I find is about the eye wear company. There's some coverage about potential insider trading, but that doesn't have extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or redirect to the eye wear company I suppose. That would seem ok. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When making such a claim, it is better to pick two sources that you think establish notability, and leave out the ones that clearly don't. This is especially true when some are behnd paywalls. BruceThomson (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reflexive self-consciousness[edit]

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

Unnotable concept that could either be deleted or merged into the Eugene Halliday article. The only source is a book from Eugene Halliday, the creator. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldnt find a lot of sources for this term, most of my findings were defonitions and treatments.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 16:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 00:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Inseparables (2023)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFF. Should be deleted or moved to DRAFT until release

PROD removed. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Belgium, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disputed the PROD in the belief that it deserved community consensus. I am neutral in this discussion 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I would like to understand how can you judge that this article should be deleted since every fact is proven and sourced by important, national and reliable media. There are only four sources because there is not a lot of information in the article. I think that if you judge that this article should be deleted for it lacks of reliability it means that you didn't read the sources properly. I'm open to the discussion. If you want to tell me what to improve in the article I would be glad to do so, but please don't delete it.
    Have a nice day. Biard Hippolyte (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the requirements for future films WP:NFF and then come back and explain why you think this film meets those requirements. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying the problem, I added a paragraph explaining that the first image of the film were released and that a real promo video had been shown at the american film market. All this obviously sourced by Variety, the world's leading media on the film industry. Is it enough to avoid delation? Biard Hippolyte (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify, too soon for an article but could be notable in the future. Suonii180 (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment an editor attempted to remove the AFD template from the article which I reverted since this discussion is still ongoing. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This seems like WP:TOOSOON. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:40, 21 January 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. Numerically this is an even split, but the sources uncovered later in the discussion have largely not been rebutted, so we have a weak consensus to keep here. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Sutermeister[edit]

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

Non-notable captain who only lead 240 soldiers and doesn't have significant coverage at all. PROD was contested by an IP that claimed the article should be kept bc it has info that leads to a "better understanding of this war". I do not see anywhere significant to the understanding in the article. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't read Deutsch, but it seems the now-found Sauerländer publication does seem to provide significant coverage of the subject. Updating my !vote to weak keep, as I am still not bullish on the article, but it seems there is a good batch of sourcing. Curbon7 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable small unit commander. I would support a redirect if that turns out to be consensus, although there's no indication he assumed command of the consolidated unit in 1864.Intothatdarkness 17:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are 2 good sources cited in the article: a biography of the subject here (although I can't read all of it online) and a 3-paragraph biographical note here. There are also a number of obituaries accessible through Newspapers.com which go into some detail. I'll work on adding them to the article. That's enough to meet WP:SIGCOV in my view, but if others disagree then redirect to 11th Independent Battery Indiana Light Artillery per Curbon7. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure whether obituaries should count towards sigcov as almost every lieutenant gets a lot of obituaries, is there a policy on this? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bylined obituaries from news writers would help towards establishing notaility, but self-published ones would not. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Based on the newspapers.com discovery, the article should be kept. If after all the additions those who nominated the article for deletion feel the same way, they can renominate it, and then there can be a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRed176 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seems like all notability comes from Civil War and his artillery. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Sutermeister wasn't just a military figure, but also an architect and sculptor. In German-language Wikipedia, the article was deleted in a first version, but later kept because Sutermeister has an entry as a sculptor in the Thieme-Becker artists dictionary, which per German Wikipedia's criteria means automatic notability. But I have no idea how English Wikipedia usually handles this. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestumblindi The most specific guideline I could find was WP:ARTIST. I don't see any of that criteria being fulfilled though. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I noticed that the Sauerländer publication was recently uploaded to Commons by User:Υ.Γ.. It's not really a "book", however, but an obituary originally printed in a newspaper (Zofinger Tagblatt) and then as an offprint ("Separatabzug"). Gestumblindi (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the obituary was written by the newspaper itself, then I think that we have an article we should keep—the obituary looks quite lengthy and should contain sufficient detail to create an encyclopedia article about this person. If this is something that the family produced and simply had published in the newspaper, then I would lean weakly towards deletion. My German skills are lacking, so I'm going to need a bit of help with figuring out which case we're in. I unfortunately lack access to Oxford Art Online (see: Phabricator:T320236), which is where a digital copy of the entry in the German biographical dictionary is held, so I can't evaluate its usefulness. However, if that source provides WP:SIGCOV, then it would make sense to keep the article.
I'm still on the fence because of the sources, though I think I lean towards keeping at the moment unless both of these sources for some reason do not contribute towards GNG. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: That volume of Thieme-Becker can be accessed freely as a PDF here at the Repository of the Cracow University of Technology. The entry for "Sutermeister, Arnold, Bildhauer u. Architekt" can be found on page 319. It is a very short entry that refers to "Brun, Schweiz. Kstlerlex., 3 (1913)", which apparently is short für a "Schweizer Künsterlexikon", but I haven't seen the article there. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link! I'm unsure if that's the sort of national biographical dictionary that would satisfy WP:ANYBIO#3, but I agree that the particular entry is not WP:SIGCOV. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Commons, but shouldn't these kind of things be uploaded to Wikisource instead? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Wikisource is more for text renderings, but I see original scans uploaded to Commons all the time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikisource is using original scans uploaded to Commons as a base for its text renderings; usually, files aren't uploaded to Wikisource. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Between the German publications and English-language sources mentioned above, I feel GNG has been sufficiently met. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem with 19th century sources is that it's often hard to find both primary and secondary sources about any person, except for very famous people. There seemed to be enough of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's worth noting that he has no entry and no mention in SIKART, the quite comprehensive Swiss visual arts biographical dictionary, which points to a lack of notability as an artist. No opinion as to any other grounds of notability. Sandstein 08:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's also this source to consider. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:24, 28 January 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. Daniel (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Starr (winemaker)[edit]

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

This biography appears to fail WP:GNG. There appears to be no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, just brief mentions. Even if notable under GNG, this might also be a WP:1E situation, due to the secondary coverage being about her role selling some early Oregon wines to a prominent wine critic. Her role in that event seems trivial, though, and might only merit a brief mention on the main Oregon wine article's history section. QuintinK (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I didn't find anything substantive about her, unfortunately. I'll come back and check if anyone has had a better result than I did. Lamona (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She may be locally notable, but regionally or nationally, there is no SIGCOV on her; her WP article would actually be the biggest plank in her notability. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. She only had local coverage and impact. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel Vision (Stickman album)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, has been redirected numerous times with the author of the page repeatedly reverting and restoring the article without improvements. Officially sending to AFD as the redirect-and-restore back-and-forth is starting to approach edit warring. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Found no evidence of notability just as nominator says. Artist's article doesn't look too hot, might have an additional AfD there. If not, this changes to a redirect vote. QuietHere (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Stickman is alive. Covers the rest of his albums as well. QuietHere (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the AfD for Mr. Stickman's main article does not cover all his other albums unless all of those are formally nominated for deletion as well. (And then there are options to combine the AfDs.) I see no problem in bold redirects for most of those, which is a different process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 22:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Haver[edit]

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

Contested PROD. As the nominator said: no real SIGCOV notability in regional/national RS; all RS due to his business activities (and not him). UtherSRG (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A WP:UPE blp (i.e. large article created in one single edit, with photo, and then the editor abandoned WP), that was very PROMO. I trimmed much of the puffery but I left the "America's Cup" section intact for comparison of how PROMO it was. I realized that all his refs are either local Arizona refs (in the AZCentral site), or are related to his business activities (i.e. America's Cup projects). I could not find a regional/national US quality RS that did a SIGCOV piece on him (i.e. he is not a notable figure in the regional/national US business community). Even the local Arizona RS is reporting about his business/investment-activities (he is a wealthy private equity investor), but never about him as a notable subject. It was PROD'ded but an IP (the UPE) asked for it to be refunded, but the refunding Admin immediately sent it to AfD. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that when you have looked at the recent edits of 98.171.86.98 (talk · contribs) on this BLP (covering his 40th and 50th birthdays), there is going to be some WP:SALTing needed as well. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Feels promotional, puffy wording, sourcing is tangential, mentioning him in relation to other things, no sources about him directly. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be about a guy that climbed a mountain and sails. Business man does fancy stuff I guess. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very promotional. Definitely zero notability in climbing world. 31.187.2.233 (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier versions are extraordinarily promotional. I have a feeling we will see his BLP at AfD several times in the future (but deleted every time). 31.187.2.233 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 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 Sisland. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sisland Carr[edit]

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

Whilst Sisland Carr is undoubtedly pretty, it is hardly notable for an article, I propose it be deleted, and its content be added to the Sisland Article, something I'm more than happy to do. Erik Sergeant (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. Erik Sergeant (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it seems to be a nature reserve but there doesn't appear to be much coverage outside the Woodland Trust. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we therefore merge it, seeing as there's likely to only ever be one citation, depends, what do you think...? Erik Sergeant (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps to Sisland. Being designated a nature reserve may make it inherently notable per WP:GEOFEAT. If it was an SSSI then probably but I'm not sure being a "nature reserve" is the same thing as many places are referred to as such and in this case may not have much coverage outside of the Woodland Trust which is arguably a primary source for its status as a nature reserve. Given it may not be inherently notable and the only source is arguably primary I'd question if WP:GNG is passed so a merge probably makes sense but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, I'd say it falls under the first line of the third section of WP:NOPAGE (although whether that entirely helps my argument...), and although there aren't many examples of problematic permastubs on WP:PERMA, I would say Sisland Carr falls under that too. Also, I'd personally rather see an improvement of, and addition to, Sisland rather than one more stub lying around, but my opinion doesn't really count against WP:N. Erik Sergeant (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Sisland, maybe under Geography or as a separate section, leaving Sisland Carr as a redirect.
Unless the nature reserve has attracted attention outside of its owner/manager, The Woodland Trust, e.g. for a fact such as it's got the only "species of X in England" or some such, it doesn't pass muster as a separate article under GNG. I haven't found independent sources that give significant indepth coverage.
The Woodland Trust's management plan [2] doesn't reveal anything of particular significance about the site. Perhaps the nearest is its importance for locally rare moths and its recording as a site for noctule bats. However, the document states that sensitive species information about the site is not included in this version of the plan.
The Trust gives its location as "Sisland Carr, Chedgrave" presumably because Chedgrave is more well known than Sisland. However, Ordnance Survey historical and current mapping shows the woodland to be within Sisland civil parish. The access track is from Sisland (access from the Chedgrave side is gated and marked as private on Google Street View) so I think it's preferable to merge content to Sisland. Rupples (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, you can't get through from Chedgrave, and if it's of any significance, there is a sewage processing plant near it, (I think it processes, it does something to sewage, I know that much...) not sure it matters, but I thought I should mention it anyway? Erik Sergeant (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Found a paragraph in Reader's Digest book [3]. Rupples (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sisland. From WP:GEOLAND:
    Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
    Harmless article but it would do just as well in the Sisland article with a redirect for now. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:39, 28 January 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 argument to userfy this is substantially weakened by the absence of any demonstration of notability or eventual encyclopedic value. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of the United States for 2021[edit]

Vehicle registration plates of the United States for 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced would-be gallery (the most recent "reference" is from 2019, for a 2021 list). Unclear why we need lists for each year, when they are mostly identical anyway and don't even indicate what changed. WP:LISTCRUFT. Other years may need to go as well, but let's start with one and see what happens. Fram (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. Fram (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NLIST and possibly WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The sources indicate that the history of US licence plates may be notable but not that a year by year list of every state's license plates is. Further, this list does not serve any navigation purposes within Wikipedia - there is no way that each state's license plate for 2021 is notable. I'd say this matches point #1 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. WJ94 (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The fact that these have been created for every year does not justify their existence, as the encyclopedic content is covered at the general article Vehicle registration plates of the United States or the articles specific to states if it only applies to one state. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both the 2007 and 2019 reference objections have been overcome with multiple 2021 references. Similar to stamps, coins, currency, and other governmental issues, it is important to track these changes. Some of these articles have been around since at least 2016 which means that other admins and editors have thought they the pages were worth keeping and providing useful material. Additionally, the pageview counts also indicate that they pages are useful, important to readers, and provide data others are interested in viewing.Zcarstvnz (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "multiple 2021 references" are all from the "Automobile License Plate Collectors Association". We don't have article for the new stamps of every year in every country, nor do we list currency per year. Fram (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • And this doesn't demonstrate why it's needed in a separate article, and not the general articles for each state. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        These articles go into more detail about what plates were used when. For the state-by-state articles they pretty much just give a timeline of basic passenger plates and gloss over any non-passenger plates, only listing maybe half the non-passenger types and their current baseplates, or, if you're lucky, the past two baseplates. One thing that these articles provide that the general articles don't is information on older non-passenger plates. If someone wanted to know about, say, truck license plates from the 1940s, they're not going to find any information about it in any of the general articles. GDog 0 (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd perhaps keep the more notable ones that have some kind of media coverage. They update these yearly and frankly most are routine announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Maybe merge them by decade? So, the 2020s gets one page, 2010s another, etc. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion this is a good idea for time periods where there isn't much change from year to year, as separate pages don't add too much. However, for decades where there are many states which frequently replaced plates (i.e. 1950s Illinois yearly plates, for example) this would either force there to be 10 rows for a single state, or choose a single year baseplate to represent a whole decade... which for decades of massive change in license plates (particularly 1956), would be impractical and would drop a lot of important information for the subject. So for more recent decades (maybe 1980 to present?) merging by decade could work and I'd back that up, but for older decades I think they should be left as is if these lists stay as a whole. GDog 0 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is completely USA-centric. Should there be lists for all countries, or just for those (Canada, Australia, United Arab Emirates ... doubtless others) that have different licence plates for different sub-divisions of the country? Athel cb (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Still unsure between userfy and plain delete. For sure, this and the other sampled articles in the series are not ready for the main space. Also, while personally leaning toward permissive, do we really want this level of detail? No objection to Illegitimate Barrister's merge idea. Even then, I would like to see this developed outside the main space. gidonb (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy will allow the creator to work on this project by the parameters set by Barrister. Userfy and not draftify because this is a very personal and complex project. This should NOT be in the main space before it's done because of the huge gaps (empty spaces) in the current coverage that provide a subpar user experience. Much worse than, for example, an incomplete list that absolutely can be a work in progress in the main space. More like the empty chapters that folks dump in articles with to be expanded below. Also subpar UX. gidonb (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy harmless content but needs more refinement. Draftify would be acceptable as well but I don't see any reason to put it in draft space with time pressure since it has languished for years without being completed. This has the potential to be worked into something useful. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Bloom[edit]

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

Appears to only be notable for the one role in The Mentalist with all other work being either bit parts or non-notable works. Doesn't seem to meet GNG or NACTOR. QuietHere (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most coverage is passing mentions referring to her roles in minor theatre productions (such as in these Los Angeles Times articles: 1, 2, or in a number of articles on Broadway World) or to her minor 3 episode role in The Mentalist (EW). Doesn't clear the bar for WP:NACTOR, as most of the roles are minor/in non-notable productions. - Mooonswimmer 19:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... because I"m unsure. She seems to be one of three leads in Ouroboros, which got plenty reviews, although her role wasn't discussed, mostly just 1 sentence. WP:NACTOR requires people to be playing significant roles in multiple notable films. I don't think the minor part in 3 episodes counts as this, so I lean delete, but open to being persuaded if someone can point to another notable thing she had a major part i. CT55555(talk) 01:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all I find are cast lists for the Mentalist, her Rotten Tomatoes page has only guest star roles and her highest grossing movie made $2000 (two thousand) at the box office. I'm not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day,
pls kindly Nomination and DELETE the article of Draft:List of rallies for the 2024 Donald Trump presidential campaign because already MADE the article of list of Trump rally for 2024 (List of post–2016 election Donald Trump rallies#2024 presidential campaign). Pls kindly your consideration to delete this.
Thank You in Advance. Rvreyes 11 (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of rallies for the 2024 Donald Trump presidential campaign[edit]

List of rallies for the 2024 Donald Trump presidential campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed Draftification. Unsourced. WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for WP:TOOSOON. Wait for more potential rallies first. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Moore (archaeologist)[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet the notability standards set out at WP:GNG. In particular, the topic appears to fail the "significant coverage" requirement; there are few sources out there that focus on Moore himself instead of the pirate Blackbeard. The topic also fails WP:CRIME. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:12, 20 January 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. Daniel (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dasbach[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. All of the sources are either WP:PRIMARY, non-RS, or contain only trivial mention of Dasbach. My WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines failed to produce any RS-compliant significant coverage of him. Note that having been a national chair of a minor party does not denote presumed notability. Sal2100 (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Politics, Politicians, and Indiana. Sal2100 (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a search of Newspapers.com from the time he was national party chairman found nothing but candidate listings and a couple of brief quotes, no actual coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NPOL. Convention minutes, special meetings minutes, statistics, Wild Britain : a traveller's guide to Britain and Ireland's wildlife treasures, along with trivial mentions, do not advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. The clear consensus is that party leadership is not automatically notable, and the coverage is scant in poor sources. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faruk Ilgaz[edit]

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

Does this person meet Wikipedia's notability standards? Katakana546 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 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. Daniel (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ng Kwok Chun[edit]

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

I can't find anything notable about this person outside their arrest and execution. Seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E, and WP:PERP also applies. Onel5969 TT me 14:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine drug arrest and execution it seems, nothing much to differentiate it from other cases. The pair don't seem notable otherwise and I can't find much about their lives outside of this series of events. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to when the crime was done, they might have coverage in paper-only sources though. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment potentially there's an issue of jurisdiction here but the article doesn't frame it that way and instead it seems to be a fairly routine police-blotter account. Closer can count this as a delete vote if nobody else is saying otherwise. Elinruby (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search on the subject reveals that the subject's legal proceedings (PP v Ng Kwok Chun) have been cited in a number of academic legal articles and judicial precedent, thereby satisfying notability criteria. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not make the individual notable. Onel5969 TT me 16:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonetheless, I don't think deleting the article would be the best thing to do. I would suggest instead to rename to PP v Ng Kwok Chun. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, There might be paper sources for this, but it would take a long time to find them. Searching on google has no reliable sources.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hi all, i created this article and others of a similar style to provided info on foreign drug mules who were caught moving drugs via Singapore's changi airport, info is impossible to find online so i had to dig into archived newspapers (i have provided links throughout). i wanted to record the circumstances of their arrest and their attempts to present legal arguments to get off the charge, which always failed ... if others think its not Notable there isnt much i can say in reply as that is their opinion, howevere i will point out there are countless other articles that could be considered not notable, such as Duncan McKenzie (murderer), that have been on wikipedia for many years without any issues at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk • contribs) 08:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 25 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Vegalta Sendai season[edit]

2006 Vegalta Sendai season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as the page is without any citation from long time. Also, there are empty or partially filled table created. I don't think this page is notable. Even the main article of the subject Vegalta Sendai don't have reliable references.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norrie MacLaren[edit]

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

I think this person fails WP:BIO notability. Some quick googling only turned up a very limited set of hits, many self-published. Ich (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 13:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Pass Me By (film)[edit]

Don't Pass Me By (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. User:Donaldd23: you claim there are reliable and suitable sources that exist. Would you please provide them? The Film Creator (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 13:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Haddock[edit]

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

Sources are wholly inadequate for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage in various playbills (the thing they give you at a performance) and at fundraising events, I don't find much else beyond those. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage cited. Whoever put up this "article" should be embarrassed. Delete, and if this person is or ever becomes notable, then someone can write a real encyclopedia entry about him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG for lack of independent and reliable sources. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 13:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Haddock[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTENNIS with no tournament wins. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure but looks like a swing and miss - usually a player is notable if they play for a county's international team in Davis Cup, which Haddock did. Wikiproject Tennis Guidelines show this is normally the case. The trouble is this player did nothing else. I'm assuming this article has remained a stub since its 2006 creation because nothing else could be found to help add to his Davis Cup play. The 12 April 2003 Orland Sentinel talks about Haddock and his Davis Cup team but not in much detail... and that's all I could find. While usually Davis Cup is pretty solid in showing GNG, this is the rare one who seems to fail. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Fyunck. This fails WP:GNG as well as the current version of NTENNIS (would previously have passed) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Salvio giuliano 13:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haddock Corporation[edit]

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

May or may not be a big fish in the Wichita pond, but not in the big world. Sources don't satisfy WP:COMPANY. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kansas. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; couldn't find any deeper coverage in Google Search/Books. And I agree the current sources don't satisfy the notability criteria. DFlhb (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a search brought up only directory listings and social media. The Wichita Business Journal is a very small newspaper, so they probably do not have proper editorial oversight. Changing my vote to Keep per the sources found by DigitalIceAge below, excellent work by them in expanding the article! The newspapers cited are clearly established enough to be reliable, and the coverage looks sufficient to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, making this company notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As it turns out, Wichita is and has been Koch Industries headquarters and all that liquidity helped give Wichita and the well-respected Wichita Business Journal (a part of American City Business Journals), an outsized footprint in an otherwise low-key Kansas IT market. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mildly involved page creator. Backstory: There's a minor (and not proud) part of my early editing history related to Apple retail. As an employee of Tekserve, I noticed an article on the subject had been created by a ex-coworker (acting purely on their own), which I shepherded after it was nominated for deletion. I fully disclosed my association during the AfD and in both my RfA discussions. For the record, this was in an era largely without the now ubiquitous Apple Store, when significant independent retail/repair firms were rare (and I was young and carefree). Thinking I might create some category structure in which such an article might reside, I created this article, Small Dog Electronics, Nabih's Inc., and Apple Specialist (a main article for the category which included notable Apple-associated computer repair/retailers). Haddock, Tekserve, and Small Dog are still around in some form, but the other two articles cover organizations which seem to no longer exist. Tekserve successfully passed at AfD (and sufficient sources are already present to more fully develop the page). Small Dog is a well-respected computer business which encourages its employees to bring their dogs to work, so right up Wikipedia's alley (and potentially improvable material), so long as sources exist. The other three don't really pass notability by much if at all. BusterD (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Impressive additions. Keep per WP:HEY. BusterD (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @BusterD: I have expanded the article quite a bit, unearthing more information about the store's locations outside of Kansas. Would you perhaps reconsider your !Delete? DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have prodded Nabih's Inc. myself. BusterD (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Haddock Computer Center is not only local to Kansas; they had stores in Iowa and Oklahoma. I have found two other articles discussing the franchise in depth: One in The Des Moines Register from 2013 and the other in a syndicated article from 2006 (paywalled link). Wichita Business Journal is a long-running paper publication with an editorial board. I plan on expanding the article from these two new sources. I would suggest renaming the article to Haddock Computer Center as that franchise is the real notable part of the Haddock Corporation. The store is defunct, and they've established an education tech reseller channel in its place, which has no claim to notability, unlike the store. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources added during this AfD show notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 09:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SUN Charity USA[edit]

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

There is Unreferenced template in the article from December 2010. Can't find any reliable source with in-depth coverage in a google search. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:21, 20 January 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 Bernice Summerfield. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Life of Surprises[edit]

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

Non-notable book that seems to fail WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. As an alternative to deletion, I believe it should be redirected to Bernice Summerfield (the article on the main character of the book). OliveYouBean (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all have the same issue. None have any references, just a link to the publisher's page for the book. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Armenians[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: This article was originally created in 2012 and unilaterally redirected to Armenians in the Middle East in 2015. A recent RfD decided that the redirect was not appropriate and that the article should be restored and sent to AfD for evaluation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete also per Phoenician, no sources relating to the topic. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 20 January 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! 06:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Clasico[edit]

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

Article about a sports rivalry, single source fails GNG and WP:NRIVALRY.  // Timothy :: talk  06:29, 20 January 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! 06:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight Sunrise[edit]

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

Article about a song from an album. Does not meet GNG or NSONG, sources are promotional in nature and do not meet WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article seems fine to me, but if it's not getting kept as is then I say draftify and see how it charts in the coming weeks. This group's singles chart quite consistently so I'm sure it'll get to notability on the numbers soon enough. And for what it's worth, I definitely strongly disagree with DMartin's proposal; we can't propose a merger or redirect with an article that doesn't exist yet, especially when that project doesn't appear to even have a name or release day. QuietHere (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep given apparent consensus in subsequent votes. As I said, I also believe in the song's charting potential which will come soon enough. Seems a waste of time to take it down now just to have it back up in a few days, especially when the sourcing is already decent. QuietHere (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Twice singles discography for now. Not enough coverage upon release. SBKSPP (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait according to WP:NSONG we should wait for chart data to be released, additionally there are independent coverage such as [10]. Lightoil (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Song is guaranteed to chart in Korea (just as Twice's previous English-language song "The Feels" did) and at least a couple of other countries because Twice are one of the biggest K-pop girl groups in the world. I understand the sourcing is not the best at present but this is definitely a case for waiting a week for the ensuing coverage and charting to dispel any doubts about its notability. Ss112 07:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For now, it is a new song and we don't know how big it will get, but It will eventually get enough since there are articles for the feels and talk that talk Jishiboka1 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Ss112 and Jishiboka1 --PepeBonus (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The song has charted in Japan and the article has several independent sources (reviews from NPR Music and NME). Random86 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the song has the appropriate sourcing and has now charted in Japan. —Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 05:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy Keep: [11] and Japan Hot 100 at 20th place Sinsyuan~Talk 05:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GrowJust Security[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG or NCORP. Sources in article are promotional in nature and do not meet WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  06:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: No claim of notability –DMartin 06:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Uttar Pradesh. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article about a company which provides security guards, etc., supported by routine listings The draft was declined at WP:AFC but then moved to mainspace by the article creator. No claim or evidence of attained notability provided or found. (This could be a CSD A7, but as the AfC process has been jumped once, maybe this AfD should proceed to a decision which can be re-applied to later instances.) AllyD (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. As AllyD mentioned, these are mostly routine listings for sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a business listing in a directory, nothing notable here. I don't really find much of anything for sources, they're mentioned a few times, just routine matters. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-Notable company, doesn't fulfills WP:NCORP. It was decline at AfD as AllyD mentioned. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:GNG without sources. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eirene (moon)[edit]

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

Five more unremarkable moons of Jupiter, failing WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. They were officially named in August 2019 after a Twitter-based IAU voting contest,[1] and the articles contain concerning amounts of personal information about those who voted for the winning names. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Public Contest Successfully Finds Names For Jupiter's New Moons". www.iau.org. 26 August 2019. Retrieved 6 January 2023.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AICTE Doctoral Fellowship[edit]

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

Article about an academic fellowship program. Sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV from neutral unaffiliated non-promotional sources. Fails GNG  // Timothy :: talk  06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the academic fellowship is an important milestone of government funded research and needs to be publicly visible to future applicants. Moreover only 35 university are eligible for this scheme, these universities needs recognition, which can be incorporated into their own wiki pages. 14.139.171.162 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I understand, I think a simple confirmation that you are involved in the program and that the article was written to promote the subject to prospective students will be enough to bring the nomination to an end. Please let us know if this matter is a misunderstanding.  // Timothy :: talk  07:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir please accept my confirmation and let us put an end to this nomination for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.171.162 (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Promotional material, as acknowledged above by the IP. Unsalvageable. MarcGarver (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The knowledge regarding this fellowship needs to be shared to the public in an easily accessible space.

Rohan J (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete “It’s useful” is not a reason to keep an article, especially not this rampant promotionalism that fails WP:GNG. Probably a G11 speedy, since it has been admitted that this article was written to promote a program. Also, User:TimothyBlue, this isn’t a mafia movie, there’s no need to conceal the info that a COI editor creating a article for promotional purposes is not allowed from the IP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Dear fellow reviewers MarcGarver, Devonian Wombat , PianoDan, on what context did you arrive that the article was promotional in nature. Kindly read the article. This is a Government of India fellowship scheme, not a private agency scheme. If you look at wikipedia there are numerous articles about various fellowship scheme. Thiel fellowship, Fulbright program, NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, the DoD National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship, the DOE Computational Science Graduate Fellowship, the Guggenheim Fellowship, the Rosenthal Fellowship, the Frank Knox Memorial Fellowship, the Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship and the Presidential Management Fellowshipare a few among them. Just because this article is about a 2 year old fellowship program doesnt disqualify it. If so can you explain why those fellowships are acceptable but this fellowship is not acceptable. Hence i kindly request you to to recast your votes after analyzing all these articles.14.139.171.162 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not vote twice in AfD discussions.
    Also, please check WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the article must stand or fall on its own merits, not based on other articles. PianoDan (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per criterion G11. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The difference between the subject and the scholarship and fellowship programs mentioned above is that they have received significant coverage from reliable sources over a sustained period of time. The AICTE Doctoral Fellowship has not. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 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 Death sentences during the Mahsa Amini protests. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Yasin[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG or WP:VICTIM; WP:1E applies.  // Timothy :: talk  06:01, 20 January 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 Death sentences during the Mahsa Amini protests. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donya Farhadi[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG or WP:VICTIM; WP:1E applies.  // Timothy :: talk  05:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any extensive coverage, there are articles that confirm they passed away, but that's about all we know about their life. I don't see notability beyond that, had they not passed away, they wouldn't get an article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 20 January 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 Death sentences during the Mahsa Amini protests. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrshad Shahidi[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG or WP:VICTIM; WP:1E applies.  // Timothy :: talk  05:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Andalus International School[edit]

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:35, 20 January 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! 05:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytro Semochko[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. No reliable information that I could find on google, WIkipedia Library or google news. A Google search returns with mostly empty stat pages. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ukraine. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I suspect you didn't search his name in cyrillic (Дмитрий СЕМОЧКО) because there is a lot of online coverage in reliable sources (not just in statistics databases). I only checked online Russian language coverage so far, but I think there is enough to suggest the GNG can be met (check the article for two Sport Express interviews in particular that contain some in-depth coverage). I'll start searching for Ukrainian language coverage when I get a chance. Jogurney (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jogurney. GiantSnowman 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Clearly was significant figure in Russian/Ukrainian league football with 350+ appearances in the fully pro Russian top flight, Ukrainian top flight, and Russian second tier combined. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, per other wiki's, the Russian wiki has sources. Govvy (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as stated above. I have also added some sources in Russian.ThegaBolt (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate of Dawe[edit]

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

Tagged as hoax; I think that's probably right. All the references which would confirm its existence are unlinked interviews, with people that do not appear in Google results. I spot checked a couple of the sultans and their names also only appear in wikimirrors of this page. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 04:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on JSTOR or Google Scholar. All the hits on Google Books seem to be false positives for the last name "Dawe" Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly can't find anything on this. If this does turn out to be real with reliable sources then I will retract my vote but this honestly seems like a hoax. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's difficult to find information on some of these smaller polities in the Horn of Africa, which is why I've left this be for years. But today I stumbled across a source that lists the historic sultanates of the Afar people: a Ph.D. thesis by Kassa Negussie Getachew ("Tradition, continuity and Socioeconomic Change: Among the Pastoral Afar of the Middle Awash Valley in North Eastern Ethiopia" [University of London, 1997], p. 16 n.16). This thesis has been since published (ISBN 9057270390). These sultanates are: the Arikala Sultanate (with its capital at Rahayto); the Awssa Sultanate; then the smaller ones of Biru, Gobad & a second one based a Rahayto. Kassa then concludes, "In addition there are chiefdoms whose history is still mysterious like that of the small Sultanates." In short if it's not one of the 5 in this list, burden of proof should lie on the person who creates the article. -- llywrch (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Llywrch, I see you created this article but I can't tell by your interesting comment what you think should happen with this article. I'd be interested in hearing your verdict on this specific article and whether or not there is content worth preserving or if this is a hoax.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can’t find any RIS to support this. Mccapra (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia has trouble with small traditional governments, or so it seemed to me with respect to Berbers and Inuit. And yet. The UN report does not contain 'Dawe'. I have not found any mention of a people or a language or a tribe or a sultanate named Dawe or Daw. I have no knowledge of the area that would allow me to guess whether it could have been transliterated Daouai or something of the kind. It's obviously unreferenced though, which is a problem no matter what. The Afar page does list them but as I recall the mention is unreferenced. Call this a reluctant delete unless somebody finds mention of them in print at all. We would still have to debate RS, probably, but if there isn't anything about it in writing at all let alone in RS I don't see that we have much choice. Elinruby (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any independent and reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Elinruby found the terminology I was struggling for: reluctant delete. (For the record, I didn't create this article. I may have made edits to it years ago, but I don't know enough about this part of Ethiopia to do that. Despite my researches, there are large parts of that country that are still blanks to me.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While you were editing did you see any other spellings? Dawé could conceivably be spelled Daouai for example, if the place ever had ties to Djibouti or some other aspect of French colonialism. But the French are meticulous recordkeepers, so you would think there would be *some* trace. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw I tried "Daouai" and only got a bunch of false positives for the French city of Douai. Elinruby (talk) 20:43, 25 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Yatéké[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep per above. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - almost all of the sources above are basic transfer announcements, most regarding the same transfer. I would say that the best source is Telegram, by far. There are other small articles like Sportcom, which help us to build a biography, albeit not a hugely substantial one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, per sources found, per de:Sterling Yateke @GiantSnowman: Pelmeen10 posted a lot of hits there, although it's WP:ROUTINE I also feel the coverage is just a basic GNG pass. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep not the best sourcing, but it's just enough for notability with the additional sourcing given above. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 20 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Farazi[edit]

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

Claim to fame is winning a single award for "Best Child Artist" in 2002; zero signficant coverage OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no Delete arguments presented (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 01:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Young Toscanini[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Radio Times. Needs one more suitable and reliable review in order to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as a silly nomination, borderline disruptive. Altough it's a little known film, you need a lot of silliness to figure that a film by Franco Zeffirelli starring Elizabeth Taylor is non-notable. I've added two reviews, from La Repubblica and The Guardian. And the reviews were not even that necessary, as in Google Books there's plenty of sigcov, eg. a whole chapter in Harvey Sachs' book Reflections on Toscanini (as well as hints of further reviews, eg. from The Hollywood Reporter and Newsweek, although snippets do not really help). Not the first time the same nominator wastes the community's time to assess obviously notable films for which a less lazy WP:BEFORE or even a bit of common sense would have sufficed. Cavarrone 22:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (just because this is still here after day one; should be speedy) Cavarrone helped it meet WP:GNG and we're not removing an article about a known Liz Taylor movie. Nate • (chatter) 22:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cavarrone First off, thank you for finding those sources. They’re persuasive enough for me to withdraw the nomination. Second, please see WP:NOPA. In my defense, I nominate in good faith. I’m trying to help the project, not hurt it. The Film Creator (talk) 22:29, 20 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota C transmission[edit]

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

This article seems like it ought to be an encyclopedic subject. Someone has gone through a lot of effort to fill in all the information.

However... this article is a pretty clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTGUIDE. The only citations are to manuals. An IP just edited in what I'm mostly sure is a joke, and now I'm trawling through this reference to find out if it is. I feel there is little short of applying some WP:TNT that can save this article. BrigadierG (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is like the motor oil or transmission fluid articles we had at AfD a while ago, nice collection of technical data, most of it from primary sourcing. Wiki isn't the Hayes manuals, nor should it try to be. No sources found, most of what is found is simply service bulletins and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a list article (typical of many other transmission and engine list articles for most of the major manufacturers) and therefore WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not relevant. It doesn't try to teach/guide you how to fix the transmissions, therefore WP:NOTGUIDE is not relevant. However, it badly needs inline references to support its claims. If you think this needs to be deleted (rather than fixed) then you should also nominate every article in Category:Toyota transmissions, Category:Automobile transmissions, Category:Toyota engines and Category:Automobile engines.  Stepho  talk  10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:INDISCRIMINATE says data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. If that cannot be done, the list is an indiscriminate collection of information, and should be deleted. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The word indiscriminate has connotations of randomness, uncohesiveness and lack of context. The article is extremely regular (lists transmissions and their ratios) and puts it in the context of which vehicles the transmissions are in. What it lacks is many references. So, it should be tagged with {{refimprove}} or similar to encourage editors to add references. The way forward is to add references - deletion of useful information would be a step backwards.  Stepho  talk  00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Transportation, and Lists. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless there's a serious prospect for sourcing it - I'm sorry, but I feel this is one of those topics where you'd be better posting this information on your own website where you can present it yourself in your own words, talk about your credentials as an expert and explain your experience and expertise. That's a more realistic goal. With no sourcing, we have no way to verify that any of this stuff is true. If an IP makes a change replacing one unsourced statement with another, we have no idea who's right. Blythwood (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - sorry but Wikipedia is not a repository for manuals, whether sourced, or, as here, not. It's not notable, not encyclopedic, and fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a how-to article - there are no instructions to follow. Otherwise we would have to delete almost all of the engine and transmission pages for all car companies.  Stepho  talk  23:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument... I don't really like parts lists, I think they should be deleted if they are not parts that have received some kind of media coverage or coverage in books other than repair manuals and parts lists. On the other hand I dislike deleting anything at all, because someone might find it useful. The issue is that one begets another and they proliferate because the standard has been set. If there are other parts catalogs of items that don't meet WP:GNG they should probably be considered as well. This kind of thing is best placed on a Wiki dedicated to its topic. If this is allowable why not just list all the parts in all cars on Wikipedia? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dubious notability, more befitting a different kind of site than Wikipedia, but there are probably many articles like this. WP:NOT should include "not a parts catalog" if WP:NOTDATABASE doesn't cover that. If this is not something mentioned in the media or publications other than repair manuals and parts lists (particularly the individual parts listed here) it is not notable. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Tanner (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO for lack of third party coverage. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless references to significant coverage by reliable, independent sources are provided. The two press releases used as references are inadequate to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Chile. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GA Melbourne (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regretfully. If sources are found and the article is improved, consider this a keep. I wouldn't mind if the article is recreated if new material surfaces, either. Bedivere (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:HEY. I've amended the page and added the 2004 event when she was summoned to Madrid by the Spanish government in protest to Alexander Downer's critical comments about Spain withdrawing military support from Iraq. That was well covered by RSs, however it possibly falls under WP:1EVENT? Also noting here that the proposed notability guidelines for politicians identifies ambassadors as not being inherently notable. Cabrils (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ambassadors are often summoned by governments whenever critical comments are made. The additional sources are not about Tanner as the subject. This article and this one only has a 1 line mention of Tanner. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Came here from reading the WP:WIR board expecting to save the article but the coverage is woeful. The dressing down by the Spanish government, [29] is totally insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The before was mostly blank. scope_creepTalk 02:56, 24 January 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. I see no consensus here as there is a fundamental disagreement on whether or not sources available establish GNG. I don't think a second relisting will resolve this divide. I feel like there is another AFD in this article's future. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kastanaras[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASIC. Ref 1 is an one-paragraph announcement, ref 2 is a routine announcement primarily quotes, ref 3 appears to also be routine sport coverage, having only three short paragraphs, mostly quotes, ref 4 is a five-sentence announcement, whereas ref 5 is slightly longer, but also leans on the routine side, mainly mentioning stats and injuries, and is debatably non-trivial. My WP:BEFORE found sources such as interview, mention, and short/routine coverage, e.g., 1, 2, 3, but I don't think they meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. My search for the Greek name didn't find much meeting SIGCOV as well, so I purpose a redirect to VfB Stuttgart (please ping me if more substantial coverage are found).

The notability of this has been discussed at User talk:Ortizesp#Thomas Kastanaras and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#User_turns_articles_into_redirects_without_any_discussion regarding a draftification by Onel5969. I've pinged Hannelsen, Lee Vilenski, BusterD, Amakuru, and Ortizesp who were involved in these discussions. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG, coverage is beyond basic with biographical information, enough to write a legitimate article. Sources are significant, primary and independent of the subject.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't believe we're all looking at the same five sources and same BEFORE. None of the five applied sources directly details anything other than the routine sports news associated with specific events and contract negotiations. The subject is inarguably verified. I just don't see any compelling case made or proven that the subject is any more notable than any other paid teen-aged football player. The subject fails significant coverage at GNG and in no way meets SPORTSBASIC. This is a redlink on a team template and as such doesn't in any way constitute a compelling need to violate BLP. BusterD (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly none of the sources is anything but routine sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 01:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the nom's well-reasoned argument and extensive BEFORE. The sources are the same kind of UNDUE routine transactional coverage rejected in dozens of AfDs; at this point it should be clear they are not acceptable for SPORTBASIC and it's disruptive for editors to keep insisting they're SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Draftify, as I didn't read the dates of the sources till now. The coverage is still mostly non-encyclopedic and marginal, but as there is the potential for SIGCOV in the near future I think it's appropriate to draftify. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to VfB Stuttgart - While I disagree with the characterization of the Stuttgarter Nachricten article (it is brief but not "routine"), I agree that there is not enough online German-language coverage to meet WP:GNG. He's only played a handful of minutes in the Bundesliga, so it's hardly surprising that the coverage isn't there yet - it's just WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sourcing is sufficient to meet GNG IMHO. GiantSnowman 20:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the references in the article are a bit thin - but here's another couple from last week. one and two. Nfitz (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's on the article seems okay to start with and there is more online which to me feels like a perfectly valid article that passes what I believe as basic GNG. As always, I fail to understand why delete voters never support drafting an article. Govvy (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said in my nomination statement, it has already been draftified twice (1, 2) and contested, so AfD is the next step for this article. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which source passes SPORTSBASIC? JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless one of the applied sources offers significant coverage (and none of the seven presented so far do), this still fails SPORTSBASIC which requires at least one significant coverage source. BusterD (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, I see two polar opposite points of view on the quality of the sourcing and I don't want to close this as No Consensus without a first relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RS. NYC Guru (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is just clarifying that I do agree that some of these sources meet the reliable sources guideline. Instead, my subjective concern is that significant coverage isn't satisfied, which other editors of course respectfully disagree with (which I appreciate as it's great in building a consensus). Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep scrapes through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone please point out which source actually satisfies SPORTSCRIT? Handwaving at "GNG" is meaningless if there isn't a specific source identified. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some that others have suggested are STN, ZVW and Fussball Transfers Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in-depth coverage, just routine. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NBASIC as likely WP:TOOSOON. Trivial coverage does not advance notability. Not opposed to Redirect to VfB Stuttgart as an ATD. Sources that mention things like the subject "receives a professional contract" (#1), "Kastanaras extended until 2025" (#2), "This is how Pellegrino Matarazzo is planning Kastanaras with Thomas" (#3), "Kastanaras celebrates Bundesliga debut" (#4), "Bundesliga debut: Kastanaras is said to give VfB “a lot of joy”" (#5), are just routine coverage, and does not provide significant coverage. Of the two sources mentioned by Nfitz #1-), "That's why Thomas plays Kastanaras with a hole in his shoe". He has an injury and unless someone has a crystal ball could be very serious, #2-)"VfB offspring in Marbella: This is how Egloff, Kastanaras, di Benedetto & Co.", states the subject "could soon become VfB's number two striker". He is not in the starting XI. All of these fall far short of satisfying the criteria for inclusion. In fact, aside from the subjects name and when born there is only mention of his sports accomplishments (there are other venues for resumes), that tilts the article to a pseudo biography. There is nothing to present a "full and balanced biography". -- Otr500 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per lack of current WP:GNG which is likely gonna be overcome at some point in the future - WP:TOOSOON. It can be expected the subject to probably become notable anytime soon, he just isn't right now. Angelo (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @Jogurney:, @Chalk19:, Besides the many sources already listed on the article and on this discussion, I found 6, 7, 8, and 9 among many many more Greek and German sources. Young player with many sources with ongoing career and already 2 appearances in the fully pro German Bundesliga, one of the top 5 leagues worldwide. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sourcing may be on the lighter side, but it is a stretch to not see a WP:GNG pass here. The SportDay reference is pretty good, as it describes his rise through youth leagues and his commitment to Stuttgart. --Enos733 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 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 speedily deleted by Liz per WP:G5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saidul Islam (Director)[edit]

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

Non notable film director. So far directed only one film and I am unable to see/find any significant covarage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

All of sources are either interview or press release or passing mentions (most of sources are). Didn't won any major/notable award. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE.

(Note that the article was previously created under the title Saidul Islam Rana and then is was deleted for "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: WP:UPE sock") আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Rostami[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP article. References are to promotional type materials, does not meet SIGCOV. Article does not meet GNG or WP:SINGER.  // Timothy :: talk  01:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 National Beach Soccer Championship[edit]

2022–23 National Beach Soccer Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and SPORTSEVENT. Article is basically a score card. The Redlinks in this article shows the author does not understand notability.  // Timothy :: talk  01:10, 20 January 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) 02:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seek AI[edit]

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

While a $7.5M pre-seed and seed round is certainly impressive (as is being listed in Sequoia's market map), it is remarkably hard to find WP:SIGCOV for a WP:NCORP pass, or any indication of what this company does beyond "something involving GPT-3". There is no indication of notability; most of the text is ad copy, and most of the references are self-published (PR NewsWire, for example, is literally a press release from the company, and two of them are literally from the company's own website). The Forbes reference is from a contributor piece (cf. WP:FORBESCON), Pitchbook is an auto-generated database page, and the others (Unite and Datanami) are routine coverage. jp×g 01:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's all PR stuff. Almost feels like it's TOOSOON, the company is barely 2 years old.Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant independent coverage, most of it is press releases and routine reporting on raised capital. Likely a case of TOOSOON. Mooonswimmer 23:04, 20 January 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 Belgorod. Clear consensus against a standalone page; if verifiable content exists that is worth merging, it may be retrieved from the history. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Belgorod[edit]

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

Subject does not merit a stand alone article. No objection to merge into Belgorod if there is a consensus the merge would benefit Belgorod.  // Timothy :: talk  00:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom HelplessBystander (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket ammunition[edit]

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

Subject does not merit a stand alone article. Fails GNG, majority of article is original research. An abridged version that is properly sourced could be merged to Swiss Armed Forces if consensus feels it would improve Swiss Armed Forces.  // Timothy :: talk  00:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Loukas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Lacking significant coverage, a rather unremarkable career. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few articles aren't significant coverage and only passing references, fails WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:13, 21 January 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) 02:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jew gold[edit]

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

antisemitic term when used outside of context, does not need its own redirects or article. Merely a mention as done in the South Park episode is more than sufficient. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the low views for the redirects and with how bad of a term it is, add salt to my delete vote, and do the same to other versions of the term. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and would also included the redirect for the article article Jewgold as well as it does not seem like a necessary redirect link. -
    Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As cited by above other fellow editors Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt, no redirect. Per Epluribusunumyall, the other redirect just doesn't make sense itself either as it's not even linked to the episode article itself, and its historic peak was merely 51 views in early 2021. This page only cleared above 125 views/day twice. It's otherwise pejorative and should not be here. Also don't forget the capitalized Jew Gold rd. Nate • (chatter) 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree, kill it with fire. Offensive on its face. If it were historic I'd say redirect, but the occurrences cited don't seem to warrant that. Elinruby (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, seems to be clear consensus to delete this, which as the nom, I just wanted to make sure that we also delete all the related redirects at the same time. I recently nominated two others, but if there are others too that I am missing lets try and get them all in one go. TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 03:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This will be unnecessary, since those redirects will be speedy deleted per G8 if this page is. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was actually created by an account called "Alekkk" that was indefinitely blocked because of that username within two hours of that. Their other edit on the topic had single quotes around the adjective fictional for the racist idea. I guess we should have just denied recognition more thoroughly back in 2009. --Joy (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable so fails WP:GNG and offensive too. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page and delete all redirects. Content listed is niche to be assumed that this is what a reader is looking for. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Vegalta Sendai season[edit]

2005 Vegalta Sendai season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet WP:N, no WP:SIGCOV for GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT  // Timothy :: talk  00:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No cited sources and no significant coverage. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_20&oldid=1136161747"