Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 08	January 10 >

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feri Lawid[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indonesia. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in Indonesian news media or books. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 15:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see any evidence the subject meets WP:NMUSIC, and the article is entirely sourced to Facebook and the webpage of a band he's in. The band page actually gives his name as "Feri Lau" but that doesn't help either. Hut 8.5 18:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristal Kola[edit]

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This company is WP:LISTED.

Gazozlu (talk) 22:12, 20 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!} 21:28, 26 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!} 20:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't figure out if the artilcle is about the company or the cola. The product doesn't seem notable. The company is WP:LISTED, but that guideline says that notability isn't inherent in listed companies. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article about the company, Kristal Kola ve Mesrubat Sanayi Ticaret AS. It's exchange-listed and a member of the BIST 100 index fund, with a market cap of 1.81B, reportedly the 4th largest (by market cap) beverages company in Turkey, so almost certain to have sources available, although they will be in Turkish. Jfire (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this, passes GNG. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite some significant and independent coverage in this journal article, but weird enough that's actually the only real source I could find. The piece found above by HelpingWorld fails WP:ORGIND since it basically recites a press release. This article (requires TWL access) says that it has been the worst Turkish beverage company in terms of "activity" since 2005. Not a clear-cut case of notability. ~Styyx^Talk? 18:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been unable to find much coverage. Lots of BRIEFs in Reuters, but I assume this doesn't count as substantial coverage. There are probably Turkish sources available, but one might need to know what exactly it is they're looking for. Mooonswimmer 21:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no WP:RS for WP:N. Does not meet WP:GNG or any WP:SNG. // Timothy :: talk 21:13, 15 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!} 04:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arshiya Das[edit]

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

PROD was contested so bringing here. Does not appear to meet WP:NCHESS or WP:GNG. The Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar does not appear to automatically confer notability Melcous (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is not (yet) notable as a chess player; she has not earned a FIDE title. The sources in the article do not indicate the GNG is met and I have not found any others.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At 12 years old it is simply WP:TOOSOON. Few chess players are biographically notable at age 12, and the ones who are tend to be recognized chess prodigies who have an international FIDE title and who are at or approaching grandmaster strength. If she continues in chess there will be plenty of time to create an article. Quale (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 12 year old a case of WP:TOOSOON fails WP:NCHESS and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:32, 15 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. BD2412 T 17:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alois Toldt[edit]

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

I could find no reference to him beyond works for sale on auction sites and similar: fails WP:NARTIST Ingratis (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Austria. Ingratis (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in Getty ULAN, nothing in JStor; Gbooks and GScholar brings up anatomy works but I think it's a different person that illustrated them. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Carl Toldt, Alois Dalla Rosa" - Ingratis (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search online reveals nothing other than the works at auction. We know he existed because his work exists, but auction sites are for selling art, they are not reliable sources for establishing notability. One would think if he were important in his time or currently, he would be in one of the National Dictionaries of Artists, yet nothing was found in English, German and French. Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NARTIST. Zero citations. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources found online. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:34, 15 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 Imran Mahmudul. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 03:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Eshona[edit]

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

Song fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. The sole source lists it among most-viewed Bengali-language songs on YouTube for 2016. YouTube views are widely offered for sale, so that metric is questionable. Even if the count reliably indicated popularity on YouTube, the list would be a single-network chart, which Wikipedia:Record charts says "are generally unsuitable for inclusion in articles". Searches in English and Bengali found no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources.

Redirect to singer Imran Mahmudul is possible, but beyond the basic credits there's no reliably sourced encyclopedic content to merge. Worldbruce (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Imran Mahmudul: as an WP:ATD. // Timothy :: talk 21:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yes, we can merge but i don't see a reason to keep redirect. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Hopefully this will give people time to look for some more sources offline, and if the article proves inexpandable it can be nominated again. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manush Patrika[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 19 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!} 18:22, 26 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!} 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - the article already says its not notable: "circulation is mainly limited to Tripura,..." Even assuming it is claimed to be notable, I don't see significant evidence. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tripura has a population of 4 million, that's not an insignficiant population. In January 1982 the Press Council ruled in favour of the paper regarding the withdrawal of state government advertising due to articles critial of the government.^[1]^[2] In 2010 it was the fourth highest selling daily newspaper in the state.^[3] It's more than reasonable to assume that there would be much more available in Bengali and in offline sources.

References

^ Loghani, Usha (1986). Violation of Freedom of the Press: A Compendium of Adjudications Rendered by the Press Council of India. N.M. Tripathi. p. 69.
^ "A brief diary of attacks on the press". web.archive.org.
^ "Mass Communication - NEDFi Databank". web.archive.org. 3 April 2010.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to give editors time to respond to Goldsztajn's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: squeaks by WP:GNG, but probably more sources closer to home area. Tripura's 4 million would make it larger than half of the US states (26) and all of the territories. // Timothy :: talk 21:30, 15 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. Basically a WP:SNOW close, as there is no reasonable possibility that a result other than a consensus to keep will emerge at this juncture. BD2412 T 17:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2026 United States attorney general elections[edit]

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

3 years in the future, theres also barely any refrences either. It is WP:TOOSOON to become a article, maybe make it a draft for best outcome `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 20:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 20:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page consists of a known, scheduled election date and identifies which office-holders are term-limited. Meets the expectation of when to write an article described in WP:CRYSTAL. --Enos733 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while it would be too soon for individual articles, i don't think WP:TOOSOON would apply to a general article for all 2026 AG elections. References will also begin to appear as current AG's and potential candidates announce if they are running in 2026. -- Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the nominator has a point, but I don't think much good is likely to come of draftifying or deleting this, since the nominator's argument will likely become obsolete before too long and the existence of an AfD deleting/draftifying the article would be a significant obstacle for anyone trying to recreate it. Hut 8.5 18:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that it is the next AG election year for the majority of states, it is certainly not too soon. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epluribusunumyall. While individual articles might be too much, we know by now that in most places this is the next scheduled election for an important constitutional officer that is often nicknamed "Aspiring Governor." Bearian (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a lot can happen in three years and I think it is certainly WP:TOOSOON to write an article about a political subject. I do not think we should encourage writing an article about something that may or may not happen. I would be a "delete" but I am clearly in the minority here. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 15 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. It's of course agreed that rivalries are not presumed notable, but to the extent there is debate about significant coverage and reliable sourcing, there is a rough consensus that, for this particular rivalry, enough coverage exists for retaining the article. In particular, there isn't much of a direct rebuttal to the sourcing that explicitly discusses the rivalry. I feel a redirect to the List of tennis rivalries would constitute a !supervote given the weight of the arguments here, as viewed through the lens of policy. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medvedev–Tsitsipas rivalry[edit]

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

Per tennis project and Wikipedia guidelines, this is not a legitimate article-worthy rivalry. If it's a rivalry : According to WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries are not inherently notable. "We can only have articles about tennis rivalries if there is significant media coverage about the rivalry. For example, great rivalries like Agassi–Sampras or Federer–Nadal warrant an article, but articles about rivalries like Agassi–Rafter and Federer–Hewitt have been deleted by the community. Tennis is a sport where closely ranked players wind up playing a lot... it's inherent. This is not a rivalry that the press talks endlessly about like Federer vs Nadal or Laver vs Rosewall. If in doubt, consult Wikiproject Tennis before creating a new rivalry article." Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There does seem to be significant coverage from multiple reliable sources about this rivalry which are already in the article. Specifically these sources - [1], [2], [3], [4] - all describe this as a rivalry and discuss it in some depth (i.e., go beyond listing stats/match results). There is also [5] which I can't access because of a paywall but looks promising. WJ94 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, creator of the article here. I wrote to the nominator earlier today on the talk page, explaining with sources how the article meets GNG, and I had hoped to continue any discussion there, though I could've been clearer about that. [I won't suggest a merge myself – I think the article stands alone well – but considering that option is to me much preferable to nominating for deletion (!).] Anyway, want to mention I'm not under the illusion that Medvedev–Tsitsipas is at all as "great" (nominator's word) as Federer–Nadal, but that's a really high bar. And there is of course a lot of routine coverage of Med–Stef matches, but (as WJ94 noted) there's also more than that. Here are a couple more sources not currently cited that show the importance/uniqueness of Med–Tsitsipas: [6] ("closest thing we have to a blood feud"), [7], [8] (Med: "Every match against Stefanos is kind of special"). Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as I pointed out, rivalries/head-to-heads are inherent in the sport. That doesn't mean we create a rivalry page for every two players. We try to create rivalry articles for truly great massive press reported rivalries. Evert-Navratilova for one. Graf-Seles is another. Otherwise a section on the players articles in question is most always the best option. Most created rivalry articles get deleted once the general wikipedia populous looks closely at the situation. Most head-to-head confrontations don't even warrant a mention on an individual player's article... a few head-to-heads (like Hewett-Federer) get a paragraph on the player's article showing it is more significant than their other head-to-heads... and a very few turn out to be rivalries that highlight the sport in question and deserve a stand-alone rivalry article. You can always bring an Rfc to the Tennis Project and WP:NRIVALRY to change the Tennis Project guidelines on rivalries. Maybe this one is a really unique professional tennis head-to-head, but I'm not convinced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fyunck(click) - No one is suggesting that this rivalry has inherited its notability; the argument is that the rivalry has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We don't need an RfC on this because what is being discussed is the general notability guideline, and no Wikiproject can overturn a a generally accepted guideline like GNG (WP:CONLEVEL). In any case, the guidance you link to refers back to WP:NRIVALRY which just refers back to the WP:GNG - and the point being made here is that this rivalry does meet the GNG. You say that we only create articles for truly great massive press reported rivalries, but how do we deice which rivalries are truly great? The only way Wikipedia has to decide this is through an evaluation of reliable sources (i.e., the GNG). Sufficient reliable sources which give significant coverage to this rivalry have been provided. If you still think the article should be deleted, please explain why you believe the sources provided in the article and by Hameltion do not constitute significant coverage. WJ94 (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a big difference between talking about a rivalry between a couple players where it is notable enough to add to an individual's article. We may know Serena Williams show size and have it sourced multiple times but we don't add it to her article. Likewise we may see some sources that mention a rivalry but again that doesn't mean it always gets added to an individual article... we may have undue weight to deal with. If we do find enough then adding to the individual article where it is more likely to be kept updated is the best place to put that notable info. It is a huge step to say it's notable compared with jumping on an individual stand-alone article. What has been created is better served on these individual player bios... probably with a collapsible head-to-head. This is not worthy of an individual article at this time. The small amount of sourced data at best should be merged and at worst removed imho. We'll see what other think in the next few weeks of interest. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to the List of tennis rivalries article. And when the necessary conditions are met for said rivalry to be in the table, remove the redirect and you should be good to go. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with the redirect but almost none of the rivalries listed on List of tennis rivalries have their own article. Just a very few. Even if this makes the list it would not warrant a stand-alone page, so we wouldn't remove the redirect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but some do have, those which are most noteworthy aka meet WP:GNG at the very least with rivalry articles of their own. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed by WJ94 and article content. Meets WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 21:34, 15 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. Sandstein 20:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese people in China[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:OR since its creation. The page has been changed to a redirect on multiple occasions (to Chinese people in Myanmar, a destination that has been argued is not appropriate) but the entirely unsourced article has repeatedly been restored. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Myanmar. Skynxnex (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Was redirected several times to remove unsourced information as per WP:VERIFY. The last time it was further disruptive edited (as per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), and so now we are here.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to an inappropriate target, and edit-warring in the process, is disruptive. This is the right place for the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Phil Bridger, I want to be sure that I understand your comment correctly. Are you saying AfD is the right place for the article, or the current state of the article being the right place?

Personally I don't think it was edit warring based on the history. It was approaching it but it wasn't quite there yet I'd say. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that AfD is the right place. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely unsourced original research. I can't find any reliable sources which would confer notability. I can't see any plausible reason in WP:R as to why Chinese people in Myanmar would be an appropriate redirect. WJ94 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'd oppose salting this at the moment. This page has not been repeatedly recreated (since it's not yet been deleted); rather, there has been an edit war concerning the redirection or not of the page, resulting in the article being taken to AfD. If this page is repeatedly recreated after being deleted at AfD then it should be salted, but not as a pre-emptive measure. I can plausibly see a new/uninvolved editor creating an article with this title using sources that no one has found yet (perhaps in Chinese or Burmese, as Mccapra says); ideally such an editor should be able to create such an article without any difficulties. WJ94 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and salt~~. Unsourced WP:OR. Also a trout to the IP account who took this to AN/I without attempting dispute resolution first. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are presented in Chinese or Burmese that I can’t identify. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely unreferenced, this AfD seems like simple bureaucracy. Redirect to Burmese people#Burmese_diaspora, if someone want to work on a draft for a proper article it can overwritten later. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I say Burmese people#Burmese_diaspora over Burmese diaspora, as the latter has its own problems and is shorter than the section in Burmese people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I marked two of the three sources in the article (these are separate form Levivich sources below) as failed verification, the sources are about ethnic groups that exist in China not peoples that have crossed from Myanmar to China. The remaining source is Ethnologue.com, which I don't have access too. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I went ahead and added some sources to the article, I don't think it's enough obviously but I would say it's a start at least. 129.97.124.22 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(from ANI) It is possible to write a policy-compliant article about Burmese refugees and other Burmese people living in China, similar to Burmese people in Japan, Burmese community in India (and of course, Chinese people in Myanmar); see generally Category:Burmese diaspora and {{Burmese diaspora}}. E.g., The bulk of these Burmese expatriate communities (both forced and voluntary) are found in Thailand (probably approximately 2 million), with significant groups in Bangladesh, Malaysia and Pakistan, smaller communities in India, China and Singapore [9]; Border cities in Yunnan, China, have become attractive destinations among Myanmar migrants [10], also [11] (this article examines Myanmar’s internally displaced persons (IDPs) at the border between Myanmar and China and how they cross the border for new livelihood opportunities), [12] (...7,000-10,000 have sought refuge across the border in Yunnan Province in southwestern China.), [13] (Up to 10,000 Kachins have sought refuge in the southwestern Chinese province of Yunnan), [14] (Before the coronavirus outbreak, about 50,000 people crossed the border every day, including Myanmar people who work or have residency in China), [15], [16]. So, this article could be kept and tagged {{unsourced}}, or redirected to Burmese diaspora and tagged {{r with possibilities}}, but definitely not delete and salt. Levivich (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Salting this article is definitely the wrong move. It would be fair to delete. I'm inclined to WP:TNT and rewrite the article from scratch using reliable sources later. From a quick Google Scholar search, I found a reliable articles about Burmese people in China easily (e.g Border Control, Culture in Taiwan, Human Trafficking and Brides and Borderland peoples). If this article has been a target for disruptive edits, it may be better to expand Burmese diaspora and redirect this page to a new section there.

EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very keen to see what you make of it - it does look like there are reliable sources to write a good article. I agree with you on WP:TNT - there's nothing to salvage in the article as it presently exists, so deleting or redirecting seems reasonable unless someone makes some radical changes before the AfD closes. WJ94 (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but don't salt per WP:TNT, I think this may be an appropriate subject for an article, but the current iteration is to fraught with issues as noted above. The redirect that existed here for a while was also not appropriate, but a redlink may be the best way to handle this over any other solution. --Jayron 32 13:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is mostly unsourced. I agree with much of the discussion and concerns above. In addition to a soft delete, other options are a redirect to Kachin people or Burmese Chinese. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Burmese Chinese is a redirect to Chinese people in Myanmar, which is not an appropriate target for a redirect about Burmese people in China. Kachin people is also not an appropriate redirect, as not all Burmese people in China are Kachin. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of the form "Ruritanian Lilliputian" are inherently ambiguous. In America such things as "Indian American" are about people of Indian descent living in America, but in Britain (and I think in most of the world, although I stand to be corrected) the equivalent is called "British Indian". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aminhossein Rad[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 19:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in in-depth coverage in independent sources presented. Everything here is PR. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR and cryptocurrency sources - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a crypto person that dreamed of going to the USA? That's hardly notable... Lots of coverage found in the "United Business Journal", which seems to have more coverage on Netflix shows and James Cordon as well, so it's not a RS. More crypto fluff it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:SNOW, and WP:MILL. No unique coverage. Plainly run of the mill crypto bro. We're in general agreement. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:47, 15 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!} 07:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nicaragua Supranational[edit]

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

Not a notable pageant, none of the three sources in the article mention Nicaragua, and the current holder gets hardly any Google hits, most from blogs, facebook, ... Fram (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Nicaragua. Fram (talk) 16:30, 2 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) 17:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:RS does not support WP:N for GNG or SNG // Timothy :: talk 21:40, 15 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!} 16:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moran Mano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moran Mano and was re-created recently. It was nominated for speed under WP:G4 but the current state showed changes from its original state. I removed the speedy but still beleive it should be deleted and would like some further discussion. To me, the article fails WP:GNG and appears also to be promotional in nature, violating the policy WP:PROMOTION. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The consular position doesn't seem notable. The article seems to hang its hat on his father, I don't see much notability for this person. Routine business mentions. The socks from last time are a red flag as well. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There’s no claim of notability in the article. The subject comes from a wealthy family, went to university and works in the family business. Nothing to see here. Mccapra (talk) 22:24, 9 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!} 16:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guvvala Kennedy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Virtually unreferenced, and promotional. Has been moved back and forth, so draftifying isn't an option. (Previous AfD was interrupted by creator moving this back to drafts, but doesn't want to keep it there.) Sources cited are nowhere near enough for WP:GNG notability, and a search finds nothing better. There's also no indication, let alone evidence, that this would satisfy WP:ARTIST either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NARTIST. Cannot remain with this paucity of referencing. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the above – and what look like possible attempts to circumvent the AfC process. Eagleash (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete wall of text here with few references and I don't find anything other than a few mentions of him in Google. If it's been draftifyed and not accepted at AfC, we can't keep it here. Likely needs SALT if this continues. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per all above. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm in agreement with all of the above, but I want to stress that with a single newspaper article as a reliable source, this is in effect wholly original research. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:44, 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. I'm usually very open to ATD but I don't see much here to Merge with an article on the city. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Taichung Voice[edit]

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

Little to no information can be found on Google. The only source in the article lacks significant mentions Cbliu (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this title appears to have pretty much sunk without trace. There may be Chinese sources I can’t search for, but based on what I can find in English I don’t see any basis for keeping this. Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search found no sources. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Taichung: as an WP:ATD // Timothy :: talk 16:17, 16 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srushti Jayant Deshmukh[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E, not notable for anything beyond a single event. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She scores 5th highest in the country on the civil service exam. Hasn't gotten into politics yet nor worked in any GNG-worthy job. Might be a case for GNG, but I can't see much beyond interviews about her and some fluffy coverage. I'd be more inclined to keep if she had gotten a noteworthy job in some capacity. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: IAS Officers (even of Metropolis city) are not notable. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep but unsure. Lots of media coverage, but I'm not skilled at evaluating Indian sources. CT55555(talk) 15:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If my leaning keep is the only thing stopping a SNOW close as delete, then I would not object to such a close. CT55555(talk) 01:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Numerous candidates pass the UPSC exam each year. It does not imply that they are noteworthy for a Wikipedia entry. Tictictoc (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC) (WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Delete However, she gets a lot more media coverage from reliable sources, but these are all her interviews, so these sources are primary to her, which does not meet the criteria of GNG for now. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the coverage I have found, it appears WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC notability, e.g. UPSC results 2019: Meet Bhopal’s Srushti Deshmukh, topper among women candidates (Hindustan Times, April 2019, brief coverage, includes nonindependent quotes), Srishti Deshmukh, AIR 5, cleared UPSC exams in first attempt; prepared for IAS by watching RSTV (Zee News, updated July 2021, Instagram images with brief captions), IAS Srushti Deshmukh's marksheet goes viral? Had cracked UPSC exam in 1st attempt (DNA, updated Sept 2022, brief biographical coverage, includes her statements). IAS officers can be notable, but sustained coverage of their career is helpful for avoiding WP:BLP1E issues. Beccaynr (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - enough in-depth media coverage. WP:BLP1E can be considered. These all are notable for WP:BLP1E. This one also can be considered to keep as per the logic. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She got a lot of media coverage from reliable sources, but these are all her interviews, so these sources are primary to her, which does not meet the criteria of GNG for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandar Garcia (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existing sources and sources per my WP:BEFORE appear to be routine announcements or pieces mainly quotes failing the SIGCOV requirement of WP:GNG or the non-triviality requirement of WP:BASIC. Other WP:NBIO criteria are failed, additionally, the pieces almost exclusively focuses on the civil service exams placement, which is a case of WP:BLP1E. VickKiang (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom a case of WP:BLP1E. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 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 delete. ^Complex/_Rational 14:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Strack[edit]

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

Strack seems to be a WP:ROTM evangelist, displaying nothing sufficiently notable to pass WP:BIO. He's been appointed by various presidents to do various things, but nothing stands out as notable. Of the references I have checked (about half) the majority show Strack exists, or are interviews with him, or are things he has said, lending to the feeling that this is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing GNG. I tried looking for critical reviews of his books for AUTHOR, I can only find sites selling the books; other links are confirmation of where he works and various interviews or a website offering his services as a speaker for your event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator beat me to it. Here's a table with my assessment of the sources. None contribute to WP:GNG. I haven't Googled for others.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Curb Safe Charmer
Student Leadership University	From the organisation he founded			✘ No
Charleston Southern University				✘ No
Houston Christian University		Strack talking about himself		✘ No
Charleston Southern University	Press release			✘ No
Southern Baptist Evangelists	Organisation he was a key figure in			✘ No
Pat Williams	Co-authored book with him			✘ No
New York Times		WP:NYTIMES	Eight word quotation	✘ No
Baptist Press			WP:PRIMARY coverage of what Strack said at an event, according to someone who was there	✘ No
Palm Beach Atlantic University			Press release announcing that Strack would speak at the university's event	✘ No
Baptist Press	Balanced piece, just reporting what was said		All about what Strack said, but it is WP:PRIMARY coverage with no analysis or commentary, and primary coverage doesn't help establish notability	✘ No
Student Leadership University	From the organisation he founded		Lists him as a speaker at one of their events	✘ No
Baptist Press	Strack talking about himself			✘ No
Christianity Today	This piece seems independently written		? Four paragraphs summarising Strack's background	? Unknown
Baptist Press			One sentence, verifying the statement the ref follows	✘ No
Reagan Library			Confirms that there's a copy of a book by Strack in a box in the library	✘ No
Washington Post			Just a mention confirming that he was part of the group	✘ No
The News Press	Mostly based on quotes from Strack			✘ No
Washington Examiner		Per Wikipedia:Perennial sources	Just a mention in a list of advisers	✘ No
The American Presidency Project	Trump campaign press release		Just a mention in a list of advisers	✘ No
Fox News			? I couldn't get the video to play	✘ No
Golden Lab Bookshop			Dead link, but if it worked, it would just confirm that he was the editor of a particular book	✘ No
Tampa Bay Times			No mention of Strack	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Curb above. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 22:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and well, all of the above, stressing that in 2023, everyone knows that Wikipedia is non-sectarian charity, not a soap box. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 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!} 16:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fox (diplomat)[edit]

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

When I created these articles, I mistakenly assumed that ambassadors would be notable just by holding the office. Having learned that isn't the case, I guess the coverage here is just routine, and they should be deleted.

I am nominating the following related articles, all created by me:

JohnmgKing (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. JohnmgKing (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all ~~except Duncan Norman~~ Nominator is correct in stating ambassadors are not inherently notable. Coverage is routine and does not establish WP:BIO being met. Norman is a keep because he has a MBE. LibStar (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

changing !vote to delete all. LibStar (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all With about 2,000 MBE awarded each year, this does not establish notability. Laure Beaufils is weaker, with [17] contributing to notability. Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 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 Irish rebel song#List of notable songs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Join the British Army[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Whilst it's not an obscure rebel song as it's been covered by The Dubliners and many other people, I haven't been able to find any significant coverage that would support the article's inclusion on wikipedia. I've also tried to find some sources by using the song's alternative title "Fuck the British Army" but still found nothing. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a hoax, but I'm struggling to come up with SIGCOV. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk Did I accidentally imply that the article was a hoax? My bad. I'll change want I wrote. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Obviously needs referencing and something to show GNG is met. If this doesn't happen, sadly, this needs to go as poorly referenced (or, well, unreferenced) historical trivia. My BEFORE failed at finding anything useful; the generic name of the song doesn't help. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's a variant of the Scots song The Lass o Killiecrankie (here's a 1904 recording), and both songs are listed together in the Roud index as number 5680. Even if the article covered both, though, I haven't been able to find any sources that discuss the song beyond just giving the lyrics. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irish rebel song#List of notable songs. Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough coverage aside from the ones presented above. SBKSPP (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irish rebel song#List of notable songs. Fails WP:NSONG per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:19, 16 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous Assassinations[edit]

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

The article has no sources and doesn't appear to have any significant coverage at all (WP:NTV). Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, and I can't find any reliable coverage myself. WJ94 (talk) 11:55, 16 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!} 09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinos in Honduras[edit]

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

Very small group (might be smaller even than the article suggests), which doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Philippines, and Honduras. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Founded sources for the article: [18] [19] [20] SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

The first two of those are about diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Honduras, not about Filipinos in Honduras. The third one mentions Filipinos in Honduras but offers no depth of coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources, I don't find anything else other than what's given above. We aren't at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found some articles about diplomatic relations between the two countries but there are no good materials for Philippine immigration and/or overseas work to Honduras. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could possibly be merged with Asian Latin Americans.JRed176 (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, not for substantive reasons, because I think this topic is potentially notable. The Filipino diaspora is everywhere, and I'd like to create an article for places with significant Pinoy populations. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sxplay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last time I nominated this article for deletion, I withdrew my nomination because a similar title I nominated shortly after apparently had hidden sources. No edits have been made to demonstrate that this topic warrants its own article. I just did a search again with a different search engine and while I am getting sources, the question now is if mentions of these sources are significant enough for the topic to warrant an article. I can't assess foreign language sources but I can say that, ignoring the contents and just looking at the listed sources, this article does not demonstrate that it meets notability guidelines. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 08:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oricon, the national sales ranking for media, shows that several of her albums have charted, so she passes WP:NMUSIC. lullabying (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This topic might be notable, but I still believe this biography of a living person requires significant cleanup. Almost all the information in this article is being taken from the artist's website, rather than more reliable secondary sources. Sure some of this information is true, but the information is currently not being supported by a reliable source. If there is a way to find secondary sources that verify the information currently present and add it that is the path I would prefer, if there isn't then a fundamental rewrite to stay encyclopedic is needed. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, it needs a lot of work and more secondary sources. It looks like a lot of secondary sources are available in Japanese. With that said, an article that needs to be cleaned up is not the same thing as an article that should be deleted. If the topic is notable, I see no reason to delete it. lullabying (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lullabying. — Jumbo T (talk) 12:36, 9 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. There are Weak Keeps here but they are a consensus to Keep nevertheless. I expect if this article isn't further improved, it might return for a second visit to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Richard May[edit]

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

A businessman who attained a senior role, but otherwise not presented nor referenced as passing WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted as it is still in the planning and editing phases. To remove this article would be premature and inappropriate. Also, to except people who were exceptional in a particular area of expertise is not foreign for Wikipedia but rather common. Including this page on James Richard May is part of giving further information to the general public on matters that concern them and are interested in the most. I do hope that this deletion intent will be withdrawn. Carey3146 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I though the Centenary Medal might help with notability but it doesn’t seem so. Otherwise a distinguished career but nothing that makes him notable in our terms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)
Weak keep There is little claim to wiki-notability in the article yet, but the citations for the honorary degrees and Centenary Medal hint that there ought to be something. Unfortunately, most of his career was between Trove and modern internet references, and it's hard to find material that might be about him not James May. He might meet WP:NACADEMIC criterion 2 or 3, but it's not clear. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Scott Davis - happy to give this one the benefit of the doubt, seems to have had a significant career in metallurgy (see for example, also won the 1992 Eureka Prize which is one of Australia's most prestigious science awards) - but also needs a cleanup. Deus et lex (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to rename ‘James Richard May’ to ‘Jim May (businessman)’ instead? Carey3146 (talk) 11:29, 9 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!} 06:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scott Davis. Seems to have played a significant role in his field, even if that field is somewhat niche. The creator of the article, and anyone else wanting to expand, should absolutely get a chance to do so to prove notability. Kaffe42 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Carey3146 (talk) 04:05, 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!} 07:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vega flight VV02[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Following this AfD discussion on articles about Ariane launches, I am nominating this series of articles about Vega launches as they similarly fail the general notability guideline as simple, routine satellite launches. I have exempted Vega flight VV01 as the maiden flight of the Vega family, Vega flight VV15 as a high-profile launch failure involving another country's military satellite and a historically large insurance payout, Vega flight VV16 as the maiden flight of Arianespace's Small Spacecraft Mission Service (SSMS), and Vega flight VV22 as a notable launch failure of a brand new rocket.

— Molly Brown (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Vega launches besides the ones you listed above, the merge will cover them for general purposes.

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD should have some deletion sorting so that editors interested in this subject are alerted to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I understand the overall sentiment especially as other launch vehicle missions (Atlas, Ariane, etc) did not generate articles for individual launches, there is a clear tendency on the CRS (ISS cargo) missions to generate a unique article for each. For commercial crew, I understand desire for an article (crew interest, etc) but if these Vega missions were deleted, is there a view that the CRS mission pages would also be subject to deletion by the same notability criteria? If there is an editor that wants to generate the material and properly reference it, I am not opposed to it staying. That said, I am not a "hard keep" but would recommend consistency relative to missions like CRS. SpaceHist65 (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the comparison should instead be that there are no seperate articles for the Falcon 9 flights that launches the CRS missions, and that the launches are adequately covered in the articles of the missions themselves. In a similar vein, an article like Vega flight VV04 does not need to exist when the launch can be adequately covered in Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle. It would not be a consistency problem at all, in my opinion. — Molly Brown (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything we need to know can be in a list not separate articles Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I admit I didn't look at all of them but the ones I did look at are lacking third-party sources. It looks to me like the tables in Vega (rocket) cover nearly all of what is in these articles, and if more is needed other columns could be added there. Lamona (talk) 03:28, 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!} 07:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPan[edit]

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

Cookware company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks sufficient sources meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. The company's Thermalon coating might be notable, so a rename could be an appropriate WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Belgium. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 26 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!} 07:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Call me Matt - Bling Collector 09:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this and [21]. this might pass NCORP.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HelpingWorld. I don't think those articles are sufficiently in-depth to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks very much like advertising. With sales pages as sources and a lot of sources not even mentioning GreenPan. The Banner talk 23:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any that do, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 15 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 superclusters#Distant superclusters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caelum Supercluster[edit]

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

Almost no significant studies pertaining to this supercluster exists; the only real paper detailing this was the discovery paper and even then it was not the main subject; just one entry among others. The only notable thing about this is its supposed size and the figure of 910 million light-years cannot be traced to any source and might just be pulled out of thin air. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of superclusters, where it is already posted. It has insufficient publications at this point to be notable, although that may change. Praemonitus (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no discussion in sources, just a tag in a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of superclusters#Distant superclusters (at least), as mentionned above. Not enough publications and reliable references for this supercluster, thus probably fails at WP:NASTRO and not warrant to have its own article. Not to mention it is very likely the article was full of bogus information to begin with. To start of, I would argue that "910 million light-years" diameter was most likely more of just an entirely made-up size from some YouTube size comparison video, and was then errorously put in Wikipedia. As such, I will probably remove this value in the List of superclusters and I was considering doing the same in the List of largest cosmic structures. Meanwhile this source (which existed long before this page) considered this supercluster to be large and "probably" exist. Despite that, it was not put into the map as only one of its Abell clusters was known to have an estimated redshift listed in Struble and Rood's compilation of cluster redshifts, leaving Horologium-Reticulum Supercluster to be the largest supercluster in the map. For that matter, the highest end quoted distance (safe for the "lowest end" one) and the number of galaxies (and galaxies groups) were misleading too. This 1996 paper stated that SCI 059 has at least 11 rich galaxy cluster members, although another was stated to be a member too in this source. While that paper gives a lower distance of 298 Mpc or 971 Gly, I went to NED back in August, where it gives different redshift and distance estimates for Abell galaxy cluster members, with closest one being Abell 3289 at z = 0.076633 (336.6 Mpc or 1.10 Gly away)^[1] and farthest one being Abell 3307 at z = 0.15404 (678.5 Mpc or 2.21 Gly away).^[2] Assuming that both of these clusters were part of SCI 059, I thought this would give SCI 059 a diameter of 1.12 Gly, slightly larger than the 910 Mly bogus diameter. Though, I'm not sure if it should be used as it might be too much WP:OR, even if I do leave a note about where it came from. I also found a 2022 paper which consider SCI 059 as disk-shaped and give it a mass 4×10⁴⁷ (2×10¹⁷ M_☉) and a radius of 4.3×10²⁴ m (4.54×10⁹ ly), translating a diamater of 8.6×10²⁴ m (9.08×10⁹ ly). However as both of those values are (nearly) too similar to the ones used in Wikipedia and uncited for years, I'm not convinced that those values were calculated by a study and were just copy-pasted from Wikipedia instead, hence shouldn't be used. Lastly unfortunately about the bolometric luminosity in the infobox I can't find it in the quoted paper. Overall, it would be likely safe to say that this article deserves to be at best a redirect. There's currently no enough publications and information for this supercluster to have its own article. ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 17:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/objsearch?objname=Abell+3289&extend=no&hconst=67.74&omegam=0.3089&omegav=0.6911&corr_z=1&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=J2000.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&of=pre_text&zv_breaker=30000.0&list_limit=5&img_stamp=YES
^ https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/objsearch?objname=Abell+3307&extend=no&hconst=67.74&omegam=0.3089&omegav=0.6911&corr_z=1&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=J2000.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&of=pre_text&zv_breaker=30000.0&list_limit=5&img_stamp=YES

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wish You Were Dead[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. The only sources I found were about Billy Ray Cyrus having a role in the film and were not WP:SIGCOV. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:36, 9 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 Golconda diamonds. Clear consensus against keeping, but split between merge and delete, the disagreement being whether there remains anything to merge. That is now for editors to figure out through the editorial process. Sandstein 19:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golconda diamonds[edit]

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

List of Golconda diamonds has become an unsourced WP:CONTENTFORK of Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds and List of diamonds. Originally a simple bulleted and unsourced list on 22 September 2021 in the Golconda diamonds article, it was modified that day into a table in the same format as List of diamonds was on that day. Then on 10 November 2021, images were added to the table. Finally, on 2 August 2022, the list was removed from Golconda diamonds and used to create the new article List of Golconda diamonds, which is basically an unsourced subset of the current List of diamonds. Since then, the section Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds has regrown again (by the same editor who split out the content to create List of Golconda diamonds) to include the entire list again, and has acquired a collection of citations which weren't there before and which weren't also added to List of Golconda diamonds). Also, this list article is basically an orphan, so it's an unused content fork. Grorp (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Grorp (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Golconda diamonds. Seems appropriate that the main article may list notable examples but a separate page seems unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: A merge is unnecessary since the content is/was already in both articles. And someone just made that more obvious by formatting the section Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds back to a bulleted list (from prose format). Grorp (talk) 09:05, 21 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!} 03:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Golconda diamonds per above. Dinglepincter (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the prospect of a Merge is being contested by the nominator as unnecessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. There is nothing to merge as has already been pointed out, and we don't need to keep the editing history of unsourced content forks. That only encourages recreation. SpinningSpark 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Liz: There is nothing to merge, as another editor has also pointed out. The fork is a pure fork. There is nothing in the fork that isn't already in the main article, therefore nothing to be merged. Are you considering "votes" instead of "reasoning arguments"? Or for me to concede in lieu of getting more votes? Notice that no one has said "Keep". Okay, then I concede to "merge and delete", and please note that the 'merge' has already been done. Grorp (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grorp, it's just my preferences as an AFD closer but I like to see a potential closure decision recommended by more than one editor. I think this discussion will be closed soon given your statement tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but as far as I can see this list contains details that are not present in the main article, and might well be integrated again without swelling the size too much - that is, weight and color. So that's a merge, not a plain redirect. Agree that the standalone list is not needed, however. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:02, 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Kain[edit]

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

The sourcing in the article is lacking in significant mentions. A google search returns more of the same. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is my first time fully creating a page and I don't know what I'm doing so hopefully I'm responding to you. correctly. Can you explain what you mean by lacking in significant mentions? Funnyladyjk20 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Funnyladyjk20 Most of the sources you found only have one or two sentences about Kain; we require at least a paragraph in an independent and reliable source to prove notability. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify perhaps to let this new editor learn how to cite things and to find reliable sources? CT55555(talk) 04:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 I would've done exactly that, if I thought the sources existed. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if we moved it to draft space and obliged the author to submit via AFC, then would that solve the issue? CT55555(talk) 18:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - per the WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR, and WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines. There is brief coverage (The Patriot-News, 2015) of her role as Olive on Mad Men, as well as 2021 announcement coverage in Deadline for a recurring role in How We Roll, a mention on FanSided of a Friends guest star appearance, a brief mention of her appearance by Screen Rant on the Seinfeld "Chinese Restaurant" episode, 2 grafs of coverage in 'where are they now' coverage by CBR.com based on the 1997 Justice League Of America TV Pilot (1 graf describing her brief role, 1 graf overview of her career since then), brief mention in Paste about an appearance on I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robinson, and one sentence describing her audition training class/workshop in Backstage. At this time, draftication does not appear supported by available sources and our notability guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is one sentence in a 1997 Los Angeles Times review: "Judy Kain gives a winning performance as Sally's sister, a woman worn nearly to tears from struggling to understand and help her sister." She also appears to have won multiple Backstage Readers' Choice Awards over the years, including the 2015 one for "Best Audition Technique Teacher"; the annual voting has generated articles with a paragraph here and there about Judy Kain, also including direct quotes from the subject, so not entirely independent. While it's clear that the article cannot be !kept in its current state (devoid of meaningful citations), it's a tough call as to whether it is worth sending to draft to see if the article creator will be able to add citations of independent, reliable sources in addition to "inside" information directly from the source...because it may well be that there isn't quite enough "significant coverage" out there in the first place. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cielquiparle - my access to ProQuest is wonky today, but I found the 1997 LAT article online and Gardner, Jessica, Back Stage (1946-5440), 19465440, 6/24/2010, Vol. 51, Issue 25 via EBSCOhost (2010 READERS' CHOICE AWARDS LA), which does rely on quotes from Kain but describes her as "an actor who has been doing commercials for 35 years" and has commentary from "Actor and Back Stage reader Debra Leigh" about Kain's class. Based on these additional sources, Draftify seems to be a reasonable option given the coverage over time, because there may be enough to support WP:BASIC, so I have struck my !vote above. I encourage Funnyladyjk20 to visit The Teahouse for support developing this article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:02, 15 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!} 00:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baxley (Musical Artist)[edit]

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

Does not currently meet the requirements of WP:GNG. A Google search finds nothing beyond Spotify and the like. He may become notable somewhere in the near future but currently, there's just not enough significant, third-partry coverage about him to build a properly referenced article. Pichpich (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you also nominating Kirk Baxley? If not, merge to that article as both articles are about the same individual. Jfire (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are, I'd Delete both, neither has anything for GNG, his website, social media and streaming sites, then not much else. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... the first three words of the article are literally the guy's name and a link to the other article, followed by the identical birth date. The other article corroborates this in Kirk_Baxley#2019_-_Now:_Baxley.. How could they be anything other than the same person? Jfire (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed the same person. For a long time he was a member of various bands under his full name, and recently started a solo career as simply "Baxley". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk's solo page is now nominated for deletion too, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Baxley. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI editing is quite likely and notability is not established. A source is required to put things like someone's date of birth into an article. When such information is pulled out of thin air with no citation provided, it gives a reason to suspect someone related to the subject is editing using information provided to them. Graywalls (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and Kirk Baxley should be deleted too, as they are 100% the same person - the articles link to each other, and they are the only two articles the SPA editor has worked on. But they both fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO: Mr Baxley has worked with a couple of people who went on to notable bands, but he has never been in a notable band himself, and none of the sources in either article pass WP:RS. Richard3120 (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Baxley (Musical Artist) (this AfD) and Kirk Baxley. ~~The second of those has not yet been formally nominated but I am unsure about the proper procedure.~~ In any case, the musician is not notable and despite a long career he has not been noticed by the reliable music media. He and his older bands are only visible at basic directory sites and blogs, and their own social media/streaming sites. See the attempted citations in both articles, and there is nothing better to be found. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any independent, reliable sources (fails GNG), nor is there any indication ANYBIO or any criteria of NMUSIC is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what mess, and I think we can agree for various reasons this should be deleted for either COI and/or GNG. I wish to note, yet again, that it is well known that we are not a free web host for musicians like MySpace. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 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.

[1] Loghani, Usha (1986). Violation of Freedom of the Press: A Compendium of Adjudications Rendered by the Press Council of India. N.M. Tripathi. p. 69.

[2] "A brief diary of attacks on the press". web.archive.org.

[3] "Mass Communication - NEDFi Databank". web.archive.org. 3 April 2010.

[4] ttps://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/objsearch?objname=Abell+3289&extend=no&hconst=67.74&omegam=0.3089&omegav=0.6911&corr_z=1&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=J2000.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&of=pre_text&zv_breaker=30000.0&list_limit=5&img_stamp=YES

[5] ttps://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/objsearch?objname=Abell+3307&extend=no&hconst=67.74&omegam=0.3089&omegav=0.6911&corr_z=1&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=J2000.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&of=pre_text&zv_breaker=30000.0&list_limit=5&img_stamp=YES

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]