Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 05	January 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ocotillo, Arizona[edit]

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

Barnes describes this as "Prescott N. F. station and mine, Crown King branch railroad from Prescott, about 6 miles south of Mayer station." That's about all I can find that's substantive, and there is just nothing there on any map or aerial, though the old RR grade is still visible. Not seeing notability here. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This locale is only notable on at least a state if not local level. TH1980 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it isn't a settlement. It's up a dead-end road, past the local dump. At the end of that road, if you zoom way way in, there are notations for several railroad tanks. I don't know what that means, but I suspect they aren't notable. I have nothing to contribute from my personal knowledge -- don't know the area. Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of significance. Qualifies for speedy deletion. BruceThomson (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 11:28, 13 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!} 22:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stary Cykarzew POM[edit]

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

No equivalent article exists on the Polish wikipedia, other discussion at WT:POLAND#Stary Cykarzew POM does not support the existence of this settlement Kiwipete (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping User:Stok who is a Polish Wikipedia expert when it comes to weird locations like this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this [1] and [2] Stok (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if "POM" is supposed to mean "Państwowy Ośrodek Maszynowy"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these were companies repairing agricultural machinery, housing buildings for employees were built next to the company. The addition of POM in the name of the town means part of the town associated with such a company. Stok (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this, @Phil Bridger and @Stok. Normally, I would presume, this would call for this article to be merged into Stary Cykarzew. But here, there is no real content at all, so it should simply be deleted. Kiwipete (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This name was used by the commune around 2010, it is not known to which part of the village it refers and it is not used anywhere. Stok (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stok, can you please provide a (brief) translation/explanation of those two links? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are submissions of articles about towns to be deleted (in 2014). If on en: there are equivalents of these articles, they should also be deleted. Example: Rokiejna, Kamion Dolny, Rynek, Podkarpackie Voivodeship. Stok (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the same place as Stary Cykarzew. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the unofficial name of part of this village. Used around 2010. Stok (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per the above discussion and useless as a redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 7 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!} 22:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bathing Beauties[edit]

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

Fails WP:N; article has no sources and attempting to search for the toys yields nothing but eBay listings, YouTube commercial uploads, and a couple of other websites that are more so other listings. The article was previously PRODed back in 2007 but was removed by the article creator "created the page while editing other Tonka articles so that people can improve it," yet since then no substantial improvement has been made. reppop^talk 22:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. reppop^talk 22:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find anything for these toys, perhaps in paper sources? There are no sources online. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything online and to Oaktree b's point about paper sources, Newspapers.com doesn't have anything. Apparently "Bathing beauties" was a type of swimsuit beauty contest, the name of a dog grooming business, and an unrelated Shirley Temple doll. There's also lots of results for Bathing Beauty and Sennett Bathing Beauties mixed in there. I thought I found coverage of this subject here and here but apparently "bathing beauties" was a type of porcelain doll (unrelated to the later 1980s brand of bath-toy dolls) around 1900-1940 or so. So there's lots of results under that name, but they're all about things other than this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too couldn't find anything substantial apart from the sources named above and a Pinterest post showcasing one of these dolls. Much as I like the Tonka company, alas, this article fails WP:GNG indeed. TH1980 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe article fails WP:GNG Equine-man (talk) 16:57, 12 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. If anyone wants to create a redirect from this page title, feel free to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of first-level administrative divisions by country[edit]

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

Though this may seem useful, I believe this list fails WP:NOTDATABASE.

This article already exists, List of administrative divisions by country, and is more helpful than just a sprawling list of every administrative division in the world with limited context or information. Natg 19 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Natg 19 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, the list already exists and we don't have any sort of discussion here about what each "thing" in the list is supposed to be. It's a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this page that has been renamed repeatedly over time in a search for relevance.
1. The top (1st) level is not equivalent between countries, ranging from large independent state governments to unpopulated areas.
2. It has been nominated for deletion under 2 other names (1 no consensus, 1 withdrawn).
3. This was started in 2009 (taking over a 2008 redirect) by a now indefinitely blocked user.
4. List of administrative divisions by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) started in 2007 and appears to be better maintained.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge the content of this article with List of administrative divisions by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as there might be some information here that could well fit in with the other article. DoctorHver (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates already available information, conflates categories of information, does not satisfy NLIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of administrative divisions by country as an alternative to deletion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is way too lengthy and its purpose is also accomplished by the aforementioned article and associated categories. -- Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:57, 10 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 Circle (Finnish band)#Live albums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Empire (Circle album)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music). I couldn't find any reliable sources on Wikipedia library or google. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 21:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 21:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Circle_(Finnish_band)#Live_albums: This isn't an easily searchable album, but after what I like to think was a necessarily exhaustive look, I couldn't find anything. Given how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkades has gone so far, I think this band's discography needs a bulk AfD just to clear out all the cruft. I wouldn't be surprised if nothing's (including the band page) keepable beyond Henki. QuietHere (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the Arkades AfD, editors can consider a bold redirect for many of this band's albums. Find the ones that are unencyclopedic (little to read about) and with few or no reliable sources. If they have been in that state for many years, redirecting is unlikely to be controversial. If anyone disagrees, which I find unlikely, a redirect for a particular album can be reversed easily. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 7 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 List of Kosovo women's international footballers. Clear consensus that GNG is not met, which is the standard applied nowadays (NFOOTBALL having been phased out). I have redirected so the content is still available behind the redirect should anyone want to merge it somewhere. Daniel (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blerta Shala[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kosovo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst I agree that most articles should meet GNG, I don't think someone with 22 caps for their national team is likely to not meet this threshold. Individual footballers quite often get minimal press coverage (especially women), but they are at least mentioned in Eurosport, SofaScore, and ESPN as well as news sources: [3], [4], [5]. Whilst this doesn't show WP:SIGCOV, I suspect if I had access to Kosovan sources I'd find a lot more about the player. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soccer players must show notability per WP:GNG as WP:NFOOTBALL has been phased out. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Whilst I agree with Lee that COMMONSENSE applies to footballers, respectfully I don't think to does to Kosovan women footballers. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can't find anything to justify keeping the article but I did find out from Bota Sot and Top Sporti that she was voted as the best Kosovan footballer of 2020. Albinfo has a brief quote from her. Maybe someone can find more detail about why she was the best player of 2020 otherwise we may need to look at redirecting to List of Kosovo women's international footballers for the time being... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search in the major Kosovan newspapers Kosova Press, Lajmi, Telegrafi, KohaNet, Kosova Sot, Kosova Press, Shkabaj, and Presheva returned her name in some lists, single-sentence mentions in routine match recaps, and a few quotes from her. Doesn't meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per WP:BASIC, with special consideration in light of the Kosovan diaspora situation. Blerta Shala is one of the top women football players in Kosovo. The Football Federation of Kosovo awarded her "best football player of the year" in the Kosovo Women's Football League in 2020, resulting in widespread international media coverage, such as this Gazeta InFokus article, "Blerta Shala is declared the best football player of Kosovo for 2020", and many, many others like it across Kosovo, Albania, and Macedonia. While much of the coverage is not as in-depth as we might hope, a few of the articles do focus on Blerta Shala herself, and we learn many things, including the fact that she led her club FFK Mitrovica to win the Kosovo Cup championship title during the 2019/2020 season, and that she played with FFK Mitrovica in the Women's Champions League. The 2017 article in Albinfo.ch, an Internet news site for the Albanian community in Switzerland, discusses Shala's situation as a player who originally joined the Albania women's national football team as well as FC Zürich, but jumped at the chance to play for the new Kosovo women's national football team when it formed and debuted in 2017. The international match reports may not count toward notability, but in aggregate they paint a picture of a new team that struggled to get off the ground at first, and so the one goal Shala managed to score in a grueling match against Malta when they lost 3–1, for example, seems that much more significant. There is also coverage about her successful start to the 2017/2018 season with FFK Hajvalia, which resulted in her winning a distinguished athlete of the year award from the Municipality of Pristina, as well as a goal scored against Sporting CP of Lisbon in the Women's Champions League. In any case, if you want to learn more about Shala, please read the expanded and updated page on Blerta Shala...and for additional background, check out the most in-depth feature article available about her, which is not cited in the current article because it looks like a blog, here: "Blerta Shala, Kosovo football star" (in Kryelajmi). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kryelajmi claims to be an online newspaper so may well be a valid and reliable source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Lee Vilenski and Cielquiparle. Clearly significant international capped figure in Kosovan football with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but I struggle to identify the current coverage as being of enough quality to give the subject notability. --Angelo (talk) 15:09, 5 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!} 21:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lee Vilenski and Cielquiparle have point. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. We no longer give notability to players based on team appearances (and I don't think this is significant enough that we need apply IAR), and looking at the coverage shown by Cielquiparle (besides the Kryelajmi article which looks like a blog), I see an extremely short four sentence article, and an article that briefly discusses Shala (from google translate: The two national team selectors, Afërdita Fazlija and Amir Grima, also agreed that it was a psychologically tense match with many emotions, taking as a basis that the girls who are from Kosovo playing for Albania and the girls from Kosovo were facing each other. Blerta Shala and Antigona Behluli - Gjilanas Antigona Behluli and Blerta Shala have been transferred from Kosovar football to FC Zürich in Switzerland two months ago. Both were among those 6 unfortunate girls, who were once part of the Albanian national team, and due to the lack of completion of the documentation, they were not given permission to represent Kosovo in this match. After being accepted by FIFA, without any hesitation they had accepted the invitation for the Kosovo national team, where they had held the exercises.) That just doesn't appear like enough to pass WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay, Angelo and others. The available coverage is not substantial enough to establish notability. Avilich (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since no one is willing to make a "Kosovo exception" in light of the state of the media (and women's football) in a country that has had to rebuild following war and diaspora... I am changing my !vote but would just like to ask for some kind of WP:ATD, because I've now added information that can be used on other pages. (It's not as straightforward as merging it all to the Kosovo women's national football team page, as the award was for the club performance, etc.) Is my only best option now to try to get a refund after the fact? Or is there any way to just get this moved to DRAFT, with the understanding that it can/should get deleted as soon as the multi-directional merge is complete? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:53, 13 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!} 22:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DRUM![edit]

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

UPE recreation of article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum! Magazine. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ drum sets for sale are about all that comes up, nothing for this magazine or for the awards. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!: I cannot stress keep enough from this awfully reasoned AfD. This is a WP:MUSIC/SOURCE-listed resource that is used in hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and it meets WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals criteria #3–#5. The closing statement for the last one literally says at the top "I'm quite certain this magazine is notable"; but since 2006 we based AfDs on the existence of sources and not the state of current sources. Sources about sources are tricky, and there are two other exactly named magazines alongside the more traditional meaning of drum magazine (i.e., for firearms), so it'll take me some time to hunt down sources from the 500,000 results that currently pop up from ProQuest. Pinging Andrewa who undoubtedly has more expertise in drum publications. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking up "drummagazine.com" (one of the few unique search modifiers for the magazine) in Google Books reveals a great many publications citing it and several drum books which mention it as a recommended resource [6]. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Nom alleges UPE but has not bothered to to check with (re)creator, all we know is that they are a SPA and that is not uncommon for a newbie, who may just be a reader of the magazine in question. Previous AfD closed there is no prejudice against creation of a sourced article on the magazine (emphasis as per closer). Newbie cannot be expected to know the requirement for sources, and has otherwise done well and should be encouraged. So this AfD is premature at best, let us first investigate ATD. Andrewa (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this time based on the discussion above, how other items in Gbooks quote it, it would seem to be something of a leader in the drum-media business circle, if that makes sense. (It's the best and most respected of drum publications). Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, you stated your vote was "Delete" and now it is "Weak Keep". Could you strike the opinion that reflects your current opinion? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, done. I'll get this right one day, I swear. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 7 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!} 22:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout (2013 film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes; I did a WP:BEFORE and found no suitable/reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found plenty of reviews. There was also quite a bit of discussion about this film's notability as being the last starring role for Fraser before his comeback with The Whale. --Nicholas0 (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability-building reviews aren't just "any review you can find on any website that exists" — a review still has to come from a WP:GNG-worthy media outlet, and not from just any amateur film review blog or podcast you can find. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film doesn't automatically pass GNG just because its existence gets passingly namechecked in some coverage of one of its stars making a triumphant comeback in an unrelated film a decade later — it has to be the subject of GNG-worthy coverage about it, not just a thing that gets glancingly mentioned in coverage about a different film, to pass GNG. But as I specified above in my response to another user's comment, the reviews cited here aren't from GNG-worthy media outlets, but come from blogs or podcasts that aren't reliable sources at all, so they aren't helping to establish notability either. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no critical reviews on Rotten Tomatoes [7] and I can't find any. It's a straight to DVD film, which is about as non-notable as most films of the week are (wikipedia "notability"-wise). They're made cheaply, sold at a lower price point and are quickly forgotten about. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly discussed as the last "garbage" film he made before The Whale [8] is about the best mention in RS of it I can find (calling it quickly forgotten). People has an extensive list of his career from the 90s to today [9] and this film isn't even mentioned. I don't know what we expect to find, but it's not at GNG or FILM. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 6 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!} 03:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Desert Research Station[edit]

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

The article contains mostly original research and highly detailed information that would not interest general readers. Information about the station has already been summarized in the Mars Society article with high-quality sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station for the same reason as above. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dispensing with the "information that would not interest the general reader argument" right away: the general reader is evidently interested in lots of highly specialized stuff, and I hardly think that the details presented in the article break the mold. So, is there duplication with Mars Society? Yes, to a degree. Which suggests that the summary in the latter article could be condensed a bit and a {{Main}} template added. The station easily constitutes a solid enough subject to sustain an article. - The same arguments hold for Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "humans post-Earth" projects are fascinating, cf Biosphere 2 jengod (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a clear keep for both as above. --Bduke (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure how seriously to take this venture. Can't decide whether the facility does proper research or is merely a place for students to play at being astronauts for a couple of weeks. Surely, NASA is researching this area. What is NASA's view on the Mars Society "research" carried out here? The way the article is written, suggests it's a serious research facility, but is it? If it's not, rewriting is required and the article should be draftified. Rupples (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be as it produce lots of research papers. None of the papers are truly influential though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the best, but there are a few good sources. Afd is not for clean-up. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 11 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. czar 04:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m concerned about the deletion of my page?

- I can offer evidence of validity and accuracy of information that was listed on my page “Will_Santillo”

- please allow my to defend my entry WmSantillo (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will Santillo[edit]

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

I question the notability of this page and move that we should delete this page under the policy WP:NEXIST (or WP:PUFFERY or WP:NOTTRUTH or, I suspect, WP:COI, the list goes on). Pistongrinder (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Canada, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His book is covered in Maxim [10] and the Globe and Mail [11]. Also some coverage in El Pais and other Spanish stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He was just one of numerous contributors to, not the principal author of, the book covered by the sources proffered in the comment above mine — with the result that both of those sources just glance off his name a single time without being about him in any non-trivial sense, and thus aren't GNG-building coverage of him. I'm willing to reconsider if better sources that say more about him than just verifying his existence can be provided, but the sources that have been shown so far aren't cutting any ice. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only biographical information I find is short bits connected directly to the sales of his books. He has published books, but I do not find reliable reviews for them. His work has appeared in a reviewed work, but the review only name-checks him (cf. Maxim). The other article listed above is also only a name-check. I did find that Curve (magazine) listed his book Flagrante Delicto in 2009 but it's more of an advert, only 25 words. (GALE|A203140816) Lamona (talk) 04:01, 8 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 Saw (2004 film). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saw (2003 film)[edit]

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

This is literally a short film that was made to get buyers to produce it into a feature film, which it did, as Saw (2004 film). It has been in the same shape since 2005 of just WP:PLOT and WP:FANCRUFT. The relevant information is in the production section of the Saw (2004 film) page, which I redirected to last month. An editor is now wanting to revert the redirect (with no explanation in edit summary). Mike Allen 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mike Allen 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and/or merge into the larger Saw (2004) article. I'm surprised this is contentious. Kazamzam (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine, though I think Saw (franchise) would be a better choice. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Saw (2004 film). Current sources are an interview, database entry, and non-WP:RS that does demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, my WP:BEFORE mainly found unreliable sources, e.g., this, but merging/redirecting is a valid ATD. VickKiang (talk) 06:05, 11 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) 19:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick Martinez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, some sources do exist, but particularly reliable ones. The ones cited are (apart from Apple Music) puff-pieces in obscure publications. "Thisis50", cited twice, describes itself as a blog and Latestly claims: "On Youtube, he allows the streaming of around 10 million on renowned platforms including, but not limited to, Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, SoundCloud, Podcasts, and the Top 100 and Top 200 Billboard music charts." And that's a literal quote. Given the authors editing history, I very much suspect an undisclosed paid editor. Kleuske (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR Underground is all I find for sourcing; he's the social media marketer who makes everything go viral apparently. Well, except for this article here I suppose. Regardless, nothing for GNG/MUSIC. Apple charts are not vetted, so are not accepted as a source. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this is likely UPE spam and I have blocked the author for creating it. MER-C 07:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:44, 12 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) 19:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Grant (American actress)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG Nswix (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as it stands the article does not have sufficient refs to establish WP:ENT or WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she only appears to have had one-off or bit parts, based on what I read in IMdB. A pole dancer, sports reporter, celebrity interviewer and various other one shot appearances (though she did have two appearances on an Auto Trader program). I can't find sourcing confirming she was in Robot Wars as the article says. A few brief mentions of her, social media accounts, her linkedin, then we learn about her astonomical signs, and it's all pretty much useless fluff after that. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She was in a movie called the Sex Trip, but the VPN won't let me load a search for it here in the office, for obvious reasons, so I can't comment how notable either the film or her role in it, are. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several pages on Wikipedia exist to catalogue publicly-known-but-mostly-unnotable individuals who have contributed to a specific organization or such without achieving any major initial accomplishment or through offering itself as a sufficiently notable figure worthy of an encyclopedic entry. In the bigger picture, many of these pages are alright by the measurement of possible future notability (though that isn't a measurement accepted by Wikipedia). As it currently stands, this page is a perfect fit under that sub-category. And as it currently stands, I find it remarkably difficult to justify keeping this page. Indeed, no filmography database has turned up anything substantial for me either, nor do even the parts filled/accomplishments listed seem very worthy of listing (and certainly nothing lends itself to a headlining role). There are some short articles for deletion which, no doubt, should be deleted (at this time Miracle (2019 film) and The End of Quantum Reality come to mind). On the surface, appear insufficient despite their length but really fail to offer any depth whatsoever. This appears to be an odd mix of both - neither quality nor quantity either within the page nor within external sources - and as someone failing to verify the qualities of this page, I can't help but consider it a great candidate for deletion as well. Anyone else? ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:49, 13 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 and redirect to The Interpreter#Matobo and Ku. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ku (fictional language)[edit]

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

I just don't think this topic deserves a stand-alone article. A lot of what is on the article can be merged to The Interpreter without problem. Also, a lot of this article is simply taken from the Los Angeles Times article and pasted onto here. I'm not really sure this article passes WP:GNG, I'd argue that it's an unnecessary content fork, and that it fails WP:NOTPLOT. Advise me if I'm wrong on some points on this nomination, but I just feel that this should be either deleted or merged. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Film, and Africa. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Interpreter per OP's nom. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a WP:COPYVIO of this page. Otherwise not notable outside of the film, so a merge/redirect would have been fine. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 03:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Interpreter#Matobo and Ku, where the basics are already covered. As mentioned above, the fictional language does not not demonstrate any kind of notability separate from the film itself where a split into a separate article would make sense. That one source from the LA Times should probably be moved over to main article on the movie, but the other listed source does not appear to be significant coverage from a reliable source. Rorshacma (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and revdel. The page itself is entirely a copyright violation, and it has been since its very first version in 2006. For this reason, the page history should be revision-deleted (and I've listed it on WP:CP). Because basically all of the text is a copyright violation, a merge cannot reasonably take place. However, a redirect to The Interpreter#Matobo and Ku makes sense, since the language is mentioned there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as merge is impossible due to copyright violations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:09, 10 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. czar 18:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giordano Berti[edit]

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

Subject of a notability disclaimer since 2014, still apparently failing it at least on en.wiki. That he himself created and expanded his own article with several accounts (some of which, like User:Rodrigotebani, were blocked for sockpuppetry) should appear highly plausible to anyone able to do anagrams. Lone-078 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would consider this a keep under NAUTH but I do not find any RS with book reviews. Much of what is in this article is either un-sourced or the sources listed do not support the information in the article. As an example, the section on memberships and awards is a bunch of essentially hobbyist groups around Tarot and one group dedicated to aficionados of truffles. The references link to the organizations, not third-party sources. I had some hope for the Graf Institute in Bologna but I can't tell if it really involves anyone but him - he's the only person listed on the web site. (The address takes you to what looks like a residential building, but I can't tell if that's the case.) There is no question that he has written many books on Tarot and some on the occult, but not such that would support NPROF. Lamona (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence in the article of potential relevance. Being invited to a single conference does not pass GNG or NPROF. Also see the other problems found by Lamona. --hroest 03:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - he might be notable, but there's so much mess covering up the actual sources. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 11 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!} 22:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open catalogue[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am quite sure that this is not a thing. The term "open catalogue" does get used but in a wide variety of contexts, and has nothing to do with the Open Library. This isn't in itself a neologism because it doesn't have a single usage nor a single definition, from a site of graphics representing open documents, to machine translation services, and many other uses. It seems that someone thinks that this term was invented by a certain professor for a specific software development, but it is not limited to that and we have no proof of invention. Lamona (talk) 05:08, 8 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. czar 18:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Jibrin[edit]

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

This entity is not notable. Presses available are just for winning primary election. A WP:BEFORE does not return positive results. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so he's a banker that has no desire to run for politics? There is no indication as to what the article is trying to tell me. I don't find sourcing about him beyond confirmation of where he works. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes our notability criteria for either bankers or non-winning reluctant political candidates, and the sourcing is nowhere near sufficient to hand him a free pass of WP:GNG in lieu of having to accomplish anything that would satisfy an SNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 13:36, 13 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!} 01:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aritra Das[edit]

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

non notable producer of no notable work. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR Lordofhunter (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill producers. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete - run of the mill producer. Also, high possibility of UPE. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:36, 8 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 procedural close. Article moved to draftspace by author. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guvvala Kennedy[edit]

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

Moved back to 'draft' as not ready but immediately returned to main without any improvement; sourcing does not yield SIGCOV being only passing mentions or even 'search results'. 'Naive' search did not help much. Attempts to clean up were thwarted by the creator 'move-warring' Eagleash (talk) 14:21, 6 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. Improvements to the article facilited consensus. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Cram[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that would satisfy WP:BIO. Sourcing is essentially non-existent. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Scotland. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, not even mentioned at Dundee United F.C. parent article so can't be considered worth a redirect. Giant Snowman 12:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following article improvement. Giant Snowman 19:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he'sd iscussed a few times in Across The Great Divide A History of Professional Football in Dundee. Also dozens of mentions in various 1939-1946 Scottish newspaper articles. Of particular note is a June 28 1940 article in the Dundee Courier regarding his court testimony of the attempt to bribe a Dundee United player, and also a May 11, 1946 article in the Fife Free Press regarding his court testimony in a compensation claim by a player. He also served as a town councillor in Newport-on-Tay, a Dundee suburb, which also received media coverage. I've added 5 references to the article. Can you review User:GiantSnowman? Nfitz (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Across the Great Divide, he is only mentioned a few times in passing. Also mentions in local newspapers (which I can't view) do not support notability, nor does being a councillor of a town of a few thousand residents satisfy WP:NPOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable due to his role at the club during WWII. He's mentioned twice in the History of Dundee United F.C. article. Originally he was listed as the manager of the club between 1941 and 1944 which is confirmed by his entry in Dundee United who's who. The Dundee Courier refers to him as manager in this article from 1942 and when he resigned as secretary in 1945 the Courier's headline was "DUNDEE UNITED LOOK TO THE FUTURE Why Full-Time Manager Is Sought" and seems to suggest that he was acting in the managerial role. Piecesofuk (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:11, 12 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 Aly & Fila. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Future Sound of Egypt[edit]

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

Three of the five sources on page are just episode listings, one is a list of radio stations they broadcast their show on, and the last is on the website of their fellow electronic music label Armada Music discussing a business partnership between the two. Did not see any substantial coverage in my search. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Sound of Egypt Recordings; would support redirecting there if that page survives, otherwise just send this to Aly & Fila. QuietHere (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Egypt. QuietHere (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only found this during my search: [12]. Fails WP:GNG.

Carpimaps (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aly & Fila, the article in which this topic is covered, as a valid search term. Better alternative than deletion. czar 18:46, 13 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 Aly & Fila with the option to merge content that is sourceable. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Future Sound of Egypt Recordings[edit]

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

Only source on page is primary, only other substantial coverage I found is here. All else was passing mentions amongst coverage of the radio show and their presence at concerts/festivals. I would suggest merging to Future Sound of Egypt, but that article also seems to lack significant coverage so I'll be starting an AfD there as well. If that article survives then I definitely support the merge, but if not then this should be deleted. QuietHere (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Egypt. QuietHere (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Sound of Egypt + changing my delete suggestion to redirecting to Aly & Fila. QuietHere (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another merge that didn't need to come to this venue to be resolved. Chubbles (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge though; nothing in the article is reliably sourced. QuietHere (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fair bit of WP:SKYISBLUE content that doesn't need a raft of independent sources to be sensibly included, and the parent article at least needs an explanation for why the redirect redirects. Chubbles (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue the article already has that when it says
The duo opened a new record label by the year 2009, naming it like the radio show, Future Sound of Egypt Recordings. The record label signed on various well-known DJs such as Sean Tyas, Bjorn Akesson and Neptune Project. They have also signed other upcoming Egyptian trance DJs such as Philippe el Sisi, Mohamed Ragab, and Brave and in late 2010 the label joined forces with the Armada roster.^[19]
I don't think it needs anything more than that. QuietHere (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect - I think perhaps the sub-labels and all notable artists should be mentioned provided WP:V is met, per WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aly & Fila, which covers the topic, as a valid search term and alternative to deletion. czar 18:47, 13 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 per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 06:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Uniyal[edit]

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

Holders of Guinness World Records are presumably not notable for Wikipedi entries. Tictictoc (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, and India. Tictictoc (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi this page is not about 'Guinness World Records' or 'Guinness World Records Holders' . This is about a Martial Art player who is contributing her values towards her society and women empowerment. She is a very well known personality in her field and country. Kiran is trying to create awareness of the importance of self-defense among women. Don't delete her page she need support also from us to deliver her values. She is doing very great. TheHelix0 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just having Guinness World Records does not make one notable about given the amount of coverage in sources in the article of her for multiple events, does make her notable. Skynxnex (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you, but she is not notable because of her Guinness World Records. She is notable because of her skills. She is a martial art player and also a social worker who is doing very great for women welfare and women empowerment. She is not only recognized but also very famous because of her work and we have to support her work. So don't delete this page and also it's a humble request to remove this deletion tag from this article. I have provided all the possible sources to make things clear and visible to every one. TheHelix0 (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheHelix0 The Article for Deletion notice will stay on Kiran Uniyal until the discussion on this paged is closed by an uninvolved editor--likely an administrator. The result will be based on the discussion here and and Wikipedia policy. It could be keep, delete, redirect, or merge, in most cases.

Remember that our definition of WP:NOTABILITY is based on what WP:RELIABLESOURCES say about the person so the fact that she is a martial artist and a social worker helping people (which is great!) isn't what makes for a Wikipedia article, only if WP:RS discuss her and those activities. As I mentioned in my keep comment, I think that there is enough sourcing to just meet our standards but if you have any additional reliable sources that go into any more detail, feel free to add them to the article. Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I have Added Few More Refrences Which Shows That This Subject Is Not Notable For His World Records Or Guiness Records Even She has Several Works Also As Activist.@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manpreet09876 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 8 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 Osmanoğlu family. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Osman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Is this person notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? The information on the page includes only one paragraph about him, which is anecdotal and does not provide citations. The rest of the page is just general information about the dynasty, not the person himself. The second paragraph of "Life" is just Turkish president Erdogan's views. Katakana546 (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Turkey. Katakana546 (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 12:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Current head House of Osman.--Gazozlu (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 70.48.135.87 (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Osmanoğlu family. While it's notable that he's the current head of "the modern-day offspring of the Ottoman dynasty", his biographical information (also on the Turkish-language entry) is really limited to the history of his family, a television series about the family that has sparked popular interest, and a presidential call that came by virtue of his being head of the family. So the bulk of this article is really to do with the family than Harun Osman personally. But that bulk is still notable, and can be included in the family's entry. _MB190417_ (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had a look at the first AfD, from July 2020. The consensus was to delete. One contributor, also sharing the view that the article is really about his family, noted that the article read: "After his grandfather Mehmed Selim Efendi passed away in 1937, Harun Osmanoğlu had no one but his mother". The current entry reads: "After his grandfather Mehmed Selim died in 1937, Harun Osman Osmanoğlu had nobody left but his mother". Given the similarity in wording, it feels likely that the article was inadvertently recreated by @Jwslubbock in February 2021 from an other-language Wiki without noticing the previous AfD. Although Osman became the head of the family and had the presidential phone call between the last AfD and the article's recreation, these events weren't included in the article until March 2021. So there was no reason to overturn the AfD at the time that the article was created. And I think that these two events are, individually and together, still not enough to overturn the previous AfD consensus. _MB190417_ (talk)
Merge or delete. Being head of a formerly-noble family does not confer notability, and the absence of GNG sourcing on the subject means he should not have a standalone article. Merging to the family page is a reasonable solution. JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 7 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. I feel the presentation of sources was sufficiently refuted by those advocating delete, and their refutations were not responded to, so I must accept them as being correct. On that basis, consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khatabook[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG, News are only about funding, investment & announements. Lordofhunter (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom states that "News are only about funding, investment & announements." These areas still have significant coverage, and it is not the case that WP:ORG is failed. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 12:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NCORP. RPSkokie (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*In a prior afd, references were not significant; but, in this article, the news coverage appears to be passing WP:RS. Although few are press announcements, I tend to lean toward soft Keep. Tictictoc (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [13][14][15][16] are all independent, reliable, and significant sources about khatabook. This is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Carpimaps (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response Businessinder News, Livemint etc, all are based on funding, investors. None of them is helping to establish notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We need at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, based as they are on announcements and/or information provided by the company/executives with no "Independent Content". Perhaps The Bestagon and Carpimaps can link to specific sources (and paragraph numbers) that meet NCORP (not just GNG) and which contain in-depth and significant "Independent Content" that meets NCORP as I am unable to locate any sources that are sufficient. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per HighKing. Subject fails NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:34, 14 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 Trapezohedron. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heptagonal trapezohedron[edit]

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

Same as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decagonal trapezohedron and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodecagonal trapezohedron, only trivial information inferred from the general case of a trapezohedron, no significant coverage of this individual instance. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trapezohedron as a generic instance of an infinite family. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as for the two previous discussions. I think the trigonal, tetragonal, and pentagonal trapezohedra could be independently notable, but not beyond those. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until such time as someone wants to write an article including information that is not of the form "here is a general rule about a certain class of polyhedra, instantiated at a particular number of sides". --JBL (talk) 19:39, 6 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 Trapezohedron. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Octagonal trapezohedron[edit]

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

Same as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decagonal trapezohedron and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodecagonal trapezohedron, only trivial information inferred from the general case of a trapezohedron, no significant coverage of this individual instance. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trapezohedron as a generic instance of an infinite family. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until such time as someone wants to write an article including information that is not of the form "here is a general rule about a certain class of polyhedra, instantiated at a particular number of sides". --JBL (talk) 19:39, 6 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Manzoor Bhat[edit]

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

~~This article does not meet WP:GNG requirements. The references provided are insufficient to support the subject's notability and fall short of WP:SIGCOV. Tictictoc (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and India. Tictictoc (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Newsweek isn't a reliable source, so I'd imagine holding a position there doesn't contribute to notable either. We still don't have enough to prove GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. He works for Newsweek, so they are not an independent source. He won the Jaipur Foot USA Global Humanitarian Award, but this is one of many Global Humanitarian Awards that are awarded by various organizations, and this particular award is not well known as this is the first time it has been awarded. BruceThomson (talk) 09:21, 13 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 per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 06:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Khan (social activist)[edit]

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

I was unable to locate the extensive coverage on trustworthy websites. I believe that this is not meeting WP:ANYBIO. Tictictoc (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Tictictoc (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Overcash[edit]

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

Has played the violin on a few films and video games, and was the composer on two obscure shorts. Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After checking for sources, the topic does not appear to pass WP:NBIO. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added additional information about awards, schooling, and, early life. Don’t the if this would cut it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuxembourgLover (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:19, 13 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 Northcote, Victoria#Schools. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northcote Primary School[edit]

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

Article for local primary school which appears to be non-notable in terms of its scope, facilities or history. Crowsus (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. Crowsus (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northcote, Victoria#Schools, where the primary school is mentioned. I don't see enough significant coverage for this to warrant its own article, but a redirect to the lowest level locality makes sense here (and it's frequently done; see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine, although an argument could be made for notability based on the number of notable alumni. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOFEAT #1 - listed on Victorian Heritage Database. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:34, 13 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) WJ94 (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzroy North Primary School[edit]

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

Article for local primary school which appears to be non-notable in terms of its scope, facilities or history, other than being one of the oldest schools in Melbourne (the link to confirm this is dead). I don't think the buildings are Heritage-listed or similar. Crowsus (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. Crowsus (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT#1, as an article on the structure. That the school was on the heritage list indicates to me that this is notable. As notability is not temporary, the subsequent removal should not impact notability. Redirect or Merge to Fitzroy North, Victoria#Education, where the subject is currently mentioned. This clearly fails WP:NSCHOOL. That being said, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body). While WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES simply lists common outcomes rather than serving as a notability guideline itself, I don't see any issue with having a selective merge to the article on the suburb given that there is no school district to redirect/merge this to; it seems like the school warrants mention in the article on the locale. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC) updated 03:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Formerly on the Victoria Government Buildings Register. Was not transferred to the Victorian Heritage Register, however. But I think there's sufficient here to meet WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a good argument could be made that the building itself is notable as a historic site. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep newspapers.com shows RS material suitable for the article spanning decades: A Grim New Year in the Ghetto: "Most of the children are from migrant homes where nearly all the parents are on the poverty line", A fine day but not for a swim, Gold fever runs hot as schools get Games spirit. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:59, 13 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Home[edit]

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

I couldn't find any evidence that this site is notable, but I might not be the best person to determine that. Willing to withdraw this if quality sources are found (a search in Russian might be more fruitful). BuySomeApples (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Websites, and Russia. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. Promotional article. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:35, 11 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!} 06:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Ballon d'Or[edit]

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

Redirect to Ballon d'or as a section in the article, article does not meet notability, poorly referenced, highly vandalised — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idiosincrático (talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Football, and France. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added more sources. Passes WP:GNG. Obviously there is a lot of interest in the topic (116k pageviews since creation); if vandalism is a problem, request page protection. Content and sources are good and should not be deleted. Merging to Ballon d'Or is a possibility, but that discussion can happen outside of AfD if needed. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets GNG. A page being vandalised does not make it a candidate for deletion. Giant Snowman 18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sourcing could be better and I don't entirely agree that an award granted once in 34 years should have its own short article instead of being merged to Ballon d'Or. It's a new article so I am under the assumption this will see more content and sourcing. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, it's passing GNG, but I'm wondering if this is one of those times where the subject might be better covered in the context of a broader article. Given that the award has been given exactly one time, it might make sense to cover this only in the article on the person who received it, rather than having its own page. That's more of a question for a merge discussion, as outright deletion is certainly not warranted, but I don't see the !votes for keeping this as convincing relative to a merge. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk The broader context is that there has been massive interest in this exact topic immediately following the conclusion of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. There has been a lot of "speculation" about whether or not France Football will present this award again in the near future, leading to a lot of bad reporting in the media (mostly blogs), but also genuine interest into what (legitimate) information about the award and its history can be confirmed. Wikipedia could choose to bury this information on other pages, or it could provide the facts in an easily findable page. Personally I prefer the latter. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm not sure that blogosphere speculation is the best reason for an article to be made. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:48, 7 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!} 06:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Gevirtz[edit]

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

No indication of third-party, non-passing notability. Gingermead (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any sources that suggest notability. Too soon at this point for an article. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 11 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 Vijayakanth. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanmuga Pandian[edit]

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

Only acted in two films, not multiple (three or more). This article was created with the intention that the third film would release. No independent notability. Redirect to Vijayakanth (include snippet about Shanmuga Pandian there). Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabarish. DareshMohan (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vijayakanth: Only two films. And notability is not inherited. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 7 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!} 02:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yusr International School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. I could not find significant coverage, only a primary source supplied. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article about a private school; aside from Tacyarg's removal of a chunk of uncited promotional text in 2019, little has changed since. While it does have a listing page among the 65 Cognia-accredited schools in Jeddah [17], that is not inherently notable and, like the nominator, I am not finding evidence of attained notability. Happy to review though if someone can propose relevant non-English sources. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 6 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. Consensus that there is sourcing to satisfy WP:NBOOK. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a Great Birth in Australia[edit]

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

I don't see it meeting any criteria of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to not meet WP:NBOOK and does not seem to be a significant work. QuintinK (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 book reviews already cited, didn't even need to look for more, passes NBOOK on the basis of what's already there. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fixed the link to the AIMS journal review, and it's a solid resource. The book listed here cites the Vernon book but says almost nothing about it - just one sentence that links to the book in the bibliography, but doesn't name it in the text. I cannot find the other book review on the site that presumably hosts it. Not visible in any WorldCat libraries. I also note that it was published by a professional organization, "Australian College of Midwives" so it would be considered pretty niche. Lamona (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having a baby is pretty universal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Foreword is by Sally Tracy and afterword is by a director of obstetrics; midwife-assisted labor and delivery is now commonly offered in major hospitals for low-risk births. Study of outcomes show excellent results from midwife v doctor for avoiding C-section, episiotomy, etc. It's not a niche. jengod (talk) 05:38, 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!} 06:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source briefly discusses it also: [18]. The peer-review journal is pretty solid, I'd prefer another book review before we ! keep it though. Not so much that the book is niche, but it's still a book; we've usually asked for two solid book reviews at AfD. We've got one and maybe two partially ok sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This journal article (behind a paywall) [19]. Ah fine, we'll give it a Weak Keep. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this review/discussion in a magazine [20] Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2 book sources and recgonized in this. Passes NBOOK.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:27, 12 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!} 02:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Leah[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at GNG. Thought she'd have a shot with ACTOR but was only in two shows (listed as guest shots on Rotten Tomatoes), and I don't find any RS for her MMS career. Plenty of photos of the "attractive MMA girl" type, nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Martial arts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find multiple instances of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Pictures and coverage by her employers is not sufficient to show WP:GNG is met and I didn't see any other notability criteria that she meets. Papaursa (talk) 04:43, 12 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!} 08:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Direção Geral de Jornalismo da TV Globo[edit]

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

This page has insufficient content on it, barely mentions sources (2 so far, and cover very little of the article) and it has been heavily vandalized, it is a copy-paste of older versions of the Portuguese Wikipedia article, I suggest that this page receive protection from being created again. Bastewasket (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Brazil. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not comfortable soft-deleting this. Need opinions either way. Thanks!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see a couple sources from the pt-wiki article, but none that pass WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article summarising the management responsibilities of a bureaucratic division of TV Globo. I am seeing nothing to indicate that this is specifically notable, and note that the articles here on TV Globo itself and on Jornal Nacional contain much deeper discussion of the TV news coverage. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 7 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!} 02:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan–Penn State football rivalry[edit]

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

While these two storied programs have played a number of memorable, high-profile games, I don't believe that the reliable sources establish this as a notable rivalry. None of the 76 citations in the article contain the word "rivalry" in their titles and cursory examination of the content of those sources finds no explicit mention of this rivalry. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since Penn State joined the Big Ten 30 years ago, these teams (both ranking among the top 10 programs of all time) have played on a yearly basis, and it has grown into a notable rivalry. This piece from Bleacher Report ranks Michigan at #2 among teams Penn State loves to beat. Also, Michigan has been chosen as Penn State's "White Out" opponent more than any other school. Finally, while the rivalry is not as big as Michigan's rivalry with Ohio State, there are plenty of sources recognizing it as a rivalry. Here are a few examples:

"Michigan vs Penn State: Best rivalry games, an episode of "NCAA Football Classics" produced by ESPN on the greatest moments in the rivalry
"Penn State and Michigan Meet Again. These Are The Top 5 Moments In The Rivalry's History, The Philadelphia Inquirer
"Michigan Penn State rivalry already a biggie", AP story, 1994
"Michigan vs. Penn State: The 10 biggest blowouts in rivalry history", Saturdaytradition.com
The Wolverine this fall wrote about the top 10 match between the programs: "Saturday’s matchup is the first time this rivalry feels like the opening phase from 1993-97."
"A heated rivalry. The Penn State-Michigan rivalry has been dead-even ..."
"Michigan vs. Penn State still a throwback ... The Wolverines and Nittany Lions, both undefeated, have an intriguing rivalry that dates to Penn State's first ...", Minneapolis Star Tribune
"Penn State heats up rivalry: ... 'I think the rivalry was there the day they let Penn State in the Big Ten,' Moeller said."
No. 5 Michigan runs all over Big 10 rival No. 10 Penn State in dominating win, Fox News

Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable rivalry. Cbl62 found quite a few sources to WP:V Bruxton (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can weave some of these sources that establish the rivlary into the article, I will happily withdraw this nominaton. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a Michigan fan, I certainly don't view this matchup as having the same intensity as our rivalries with Ohio State or Michigan State. However, I think the seeds of a strong rivalry are gradually being sown. While I'm not fully convinced at present, I'd say enough evidence has been presented to retain the article. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources above do not do anything to establish Michigan and Penn State as rivals. Many publications use buzzwords like "rivalry" to get clicks or manufacture hype, but it takes more than a few reporters to think a rivalry exists when it simply isn't so. Going through the list presented by Cbl62:

The ESPN video shows highlights from their game and only describes them as "rivals" in the title.
The Philadelphia Enquirer source, the "Heated rivalry" article, the Saturday tradition page, the Fox news page, and The Wolverine page are all the same way. Uses the term "rivalry" in the title and zero or one time in the article but only describe the series of games as a series of games between any two teams could be described.
The two AP sources only establish the possibility of a rivalry based on quotes from a former Michigan head coach, making it not independent coverage (for the purposes of this article).
The only source that establishes a rivalry may exist by GNG standards is the Star Triblue source which refers to Michigan and Penn State as "rivals" a few times "developed into an intriguing rivalry, "On Saturday in Ann Arbor (...), the rivalry brings a top-10 matchup," and "[Jim] Harbaugh, preparing for the latest installment in a rivalry started nearly 30 years ago" but doesn't do much to support its claim of the teams being rivals.

So we are looking at one source that possibly passes WP:GNG for the purpose of establishing this series as a rialry. And there are several other pages that specifically describe Michigan and Penn State as not being rivals as well. [21] [22] [23] Frank Anchor 04:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Frank, I generally respect your views on football AfDs, but you've cited three bloggers which question whether the rivalry is a true rivalry. That hardly undercuts the dozens of actual reliable sources covering three decades that agree it's a rivalry. I really don't understand the antipathy to such articles. When we don't have sources that call it a rivalry, that's a reason to delete. When we find such articles, folks say "we know better than the reliable sources ... it's not a real rivalry." That's not how this should work. We have many, many sources discussing it as a rivalry. This is one of the most notable series in college football. Cbl62 (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cbl62, I agree that as longtime contributors we are usually we are on the same page when it comes to college football articles among other subjects. This time I just don’t see enough to establish a “rivalry” exists based on my above analysis of the sources presented above. i believe sources using terms like “rivals” once without explaining why the teams are rivals (and being two top programs in the same conference does not automatically make them rivals) is not enough to satisfy GNG for the purposes of a rivalry article

I understand your "true rival"-centric point of view, but here's another perspective. We have about 250 college football "rivalry" articles, the vast majority of which never have and never will receive SIGCOV outside of a couple small college towns. See most of Category:College football rivalries in the United States. They may be rivalries, but they are not even remotely close in notability to the Michigan-Penn State series/rivalry. The Michigan-Penn State game receives abundant SIGCOV every year in national media outlets. Indeed, if you were to pick the three Big Ten matchups that receive the most national media attention and have the greatest impact on the conference and national championship pictures, it would be the triangular rivalry between the conference's big powers -- Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. Two of the links in that triangle already have rivalry articles (Ohio State-Penn State and Michigan-Ohio State. The current article closes the triangle. Based on sheer volume of SIGCOV, the national scope of coverage, and impact on the championship races, Michigan-Penn State pretty clearly ranks among the top 10 percent of rivalries. This article is overdue and should be kept and improved. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or weak delete. I agree with Frank Anchor that the cited articles above are mostly just using "rivalry" in the title as a synonym for "long running series". I think similar citations could be found for many Team vs. Team matchups that you would not consider "rivals".

I probably support having more notable "series matchup history" articles like this on wikipedia, but we don't need to pigeonhole them as "rivalry" pages. PK-WIKI (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose a rename to Michigan Penn State “series” (or similar). This series is not any more notable than other conference games for either team (particularly Michigan who has been in the Big Ten for over a cenrury). If this article were kept as “series,” then an argument could be made for any series that has had a notable game or two and could create unnecessary content forks everywhere. This page needs deleted, not renamed. Frank Anchor 13:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose deletion. An every-year match between two of the top 10 programs of all-time is not like "any series that has a notable game or two". This is a plainly notable series ... and a rivalry as well. Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that both teams are in the top ten all time and play each other annually is impressive, but it is WP:OR in terms of establishing a rivalry. No rivalry exists between these teams (as shown by the cited articles not explaining that there is a rivalry and only using the term as it would any other series). FWIW I think a lot of the other pages in Category:College football rivalries in the United States could be deleted as well, but realize I am in the minority in that opinion for those other pages. Frank Anchor 19:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalry is not based on "original research". Major reliable sources, including ESPN, the Associated Press, Fox News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Minneapolis Star Tribune, etc., all discuss it as and call it a rivalry. Your subjective belief and assertion that these sources don't really mean it (or are misusing the term rivalry) is the only thing here that constitutes original research. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, per sources shown by Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as it is still receiving new comments today. My first impression though is that those advocating Keeping the article have made a stronger case. But the final decision will be up to the closer.

Just a reminder that a closer can close this discussion whenever they assess a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, what if the content were summarized and merged into both the Penn State and Michigan pages? It does not appear to me that the sources on their own merit notability and sigcov for this to have its own article. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moops, Where do you propose it be merged into Michigan Wolverines football and Penn State Nittany Lions football? In the rivalry sections? Seems in that case we would be acknowledging Michigan–Penn State as a rivalry, but a not big enough rivalry to warrant its own article? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that is just about what I am saying. I think that still stands up to reason, no? TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There's going to be significant coverage that exists for any series nowadays, so that makes it tough to judge what is and isn't a rivalry. However, in this case, it's a little more clear based on the links that Cbl62 has shared, that this is often considered a rivalry. I think it appears to be notable and it will continue to become more notable moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this is a notable football rivalry. The sources provided by Cbl62, taken together with the sources in the article, make this painfully clear that this has received significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources over three decades. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:07, 8 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter LI[edit]

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

At Talk:Moons of Jupiter#Should we stop creating articles for newly-discovered irregular moons?, users expressed concerns about a huge number of stubs about small Jovian and Saturnian moons for which no nontrivial information is available. There are 84 known moons of Jupiter at time of writing, and it is estimated that there are about 600 retrograde irregular moons larger than 0.8 km.^[1]

In particular, this moon fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. In particular, there are no papers at Google Scholar that focus specifically on this moon and are not coauthored by the discoverers. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ashton, Edward; Beaudoin, Matthew; Gladman, Brett J. (1 September 2020). "The Population of Kilometer-scale Retrograde Jovian Irregular Moons". The Planetary Science Journal. 1 (2): 52. doi:10.3847/PSJ/abad95.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Moons of Jupiter, which lists all Jovian moons; or Carme group, where all Jovian moons with similar orbits are described. Indeed, nothing really distingushes this one in particular. Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep, as the consensus at Talk:Moons of Jupiter for redirection has changed (so there are no more concerns), and per the long-standing precedent (since 2004!) for having articles on Wikipedia for all irregulars. There is a paper focusing on Jupiter LI and LII. It is also of historical interest, as it is the first Jovian moon to return to the pre-1975 practice of receiving a number but not an actual name; in this capacity it is referred to specifically by the pages Naming of moons and Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons. Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an anchor at Moons of Jupiter, as done with S/2021 J 1. SevenSpheres (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus change. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Even though there is a dedicated paper about this moon and S/2010 J 2, it's only relevant to their discovery process, which still doesn't set it apart from other moons similarly discovered in surveys. Nrco0e (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Straying a bit off-topic, I think Jupiter LII (S/2010 J 2) should be kept for being the smallest known moon of Jupiter. It also shows a consistently higher daily pageview count with occasional spikes compared to other unnamed numbered Jovian moons [24].

Changing to Keep per Double sharp above. Nrco0e (talk) 23:44, 11 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. ✗plicit 02:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Neskovic[edit]

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

This article has been around for nearly a decade but does not contain any indication of notability. Google search brings up fewer than 100 results, none of them sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 01:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Montenegro. ... discospinster _talk 01:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single source on the article turns up a 404 and there are no other sources establishing notability. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see he has 33 followers on twitter and wrote a total of six opinion pieces for the Times of Israel. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't anything to indicate that the subject is notable as a journalist or author and definitely fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 11 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. ✗plicit 02:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Adam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG standards. Quick Google search found 0 hits, aside from an Instagram website (which, for obvious reasons isn't a reliable source.) Sarrail (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Sarrail (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything substantial. A search in French might help but not every player in a notable orchestra will be notable themselves. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and France. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for total lack of RIS. Mccapra (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No article should be nominated for deletion with the justification of a "Quick Google search" when the guidelines call for a range of searches. We should only consider deleting something if someone bothers to check notability as per WP:BEFORE CT55555(talk) 14:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Quick" is a subjective term, so a better path is to ask the nominator for more info. Your "Keep" vote implies that Ms. Adam is notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion if she is notable. I am arguing against deleting based on quick google searches, because that is not what our guidelines call for. I consider this to be a procedural keep argument. CT55555(talk) 17:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a discussion about how to do better WP:BEFORE searches is occurring here and I am ready to update my vote once they are done. Thanks to the nominator for taking my hint. CT55555(talk) 18:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is indeed a member of several professional orchestras, but is only ever listed as a member and she has received no independent coverage for any of her own achievements or career path. She does not inherit notability from her organizations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 6 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. ✗plicit 02:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin (Indian TV series)[edit]

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

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof of notability, largely unsourced. The Banner talk 10:51, 10 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. ✗plicit 02:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chi and Me[edit]

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

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced affair that gives no proof of notability. The Banner talk 10:53, 10 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. Consensus was that it fails the relevant notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Proctor[edit]

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

There are two theoretical claims to notability in this article; politician and academic. The first is that he is a member of the Leon County Board of Commissioners from the 1st district (so not even countywide). Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore). His tenure is not significantly longer than other local officials nationally. While the article goes into (quite possibly) all of Proctor's negatives, none of them are so negative they create notability. Unless the situation is someone like Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell where the wrongdoing are criminal felonies directly related to their public service role. A clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Similar consensus was drawn for Andy Anderson in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Anderson (politician) a man in an identical role in Brevard County, Florida. Brevard is far more populous than Leon.

The second claim to notability would be his teaching of political science. However, he meets none of the criteria under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I have not through Google Scholar found a single published paper. He clearly fails notability, and thus the article should be deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is clearly far from neutral and needs substantial improvement. However, it cites significant press coverage in major Florida papers, passing WP:GNG. A 25+-year politician with a long, public history of wanton ethics violations would seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN in the "major local" category. I agree he fails the academic notability criterion, but that's moot. QuintinK (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

25 years isn't a particularly notable period of time that differentiates him from others. Also without other content, how can these actually be contextualized compared to other politicians? Also, unless there's some third-party, non-partisan source that says he is by and a way the most ethics rules violating politician in history, the instances mentioned here have no context to decide if he's any worse than anyone else (though he likely is). Short of meeting the criteria for criminal conduct, I don't see how it qualifies. There are 8 citations. Of those, what coverage from "major newspapers" are all in his region. That would be like claiming a local politician in suburban New Jersey was famous because said politician got mentioned in the New York Times.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete GNews brings up several news articles mentioning Proctor, but I'm not seeing any real significant coverage as defined by NPOL. There's this article from the FAMU newspaper, but it's not exactly independent given he works there. All of the others appear routine in nature. I'm not entirely convinced simply being mentioned in multiple articles rises to the level of "major local" under our guidelines. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources such as this, this, this, and this (that that last one is 'Wayback machine' which always spooks me fore some reason), shows WP:GNG is met. Keep the article, but clean up if need be. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current sourcing is a mix of local routine news, two permanently dead links, and a primary source document. Other news I can find is mostly from the Tallahassee Democrat or local Tallahassee news stations and on the line of fundraising, attacking another politician, running for re-election, matters regarding his son, and other routine news. This seems like a local municipal politician with a local scope in coverage. I'm not sure how reliable PC World, from the "highbeam.com" link, is for something as unrelated to computers and as contentious as an accusation of tax evasion on a BLP. I'm open to more information on that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor Mpen320 puts forth an excellent argument for why this local official doesn’t yet merit his own article. I agree and vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Soft delete~~Keep The article itself has potential of been improved because WP:GNG is slightly meant, ~~that the reason I voted for soft delete. For me draftify would have been perfect~~.Princek2019 (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princek2019, there is a Keep vote so Soft Delete is no longer possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete County commissioners aren't notable, and the article is mostly about the negative aspects of both his political and teaching career. I don't find much for sourcing beyond his run ins with the various forms of law/academic enforcement. Oaktree b (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per definition. scope_creep^Talk 11:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPROF and NPOLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL ,WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage anywhere. BruceThomson (talk) 09:32, 13 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.

[1] Ashton, Edward; Beaudoin, Matthew; Gladman, Brett J. (1 September 2020). "The Population of Kilometer-scale Retrograde Jovian Irregular Moons". The Planetary Science Journal. 1 (2): 52. doi:10.3847/PSJ/abad95.

[1]