Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 30	July 02 >

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. ✗plicit 23:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Butler (footballer)[edit]

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

One appearance for the British Virgin Islands national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A search turns up nothing. A bit tricky with the high school American football player and youtuber, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing amounting to SIGCOV. —siro χ o 10:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability and sources do not turn up anything. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jazeel Castello[edit]

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

One appearance for the British Virgin Islands national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any SIGCOV anywhere —siro χ o 10:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability or significant coverage and checking searches. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. A simple search does not show any WP:RS that discusses Jazeel Castello. desmay (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Tasso[edit]

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

One appearance for the Vanuatu national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mentions in match reports, no SIGCOV. —siro χ o 10:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability or significant coverage. Searches do not turn up any sort of bio. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tinfoil Hat Linux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little to no notability— this article's only source is a FAQ by the creators of the distribution and the only relevant sources I've been able to find related to this distro are just copies of this page from other wikis. Dawnbails (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Dawnbails (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google book search turns up a couple of additional sources, including [1]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Book sources are two magazines that belong to the same company and two books that briefly mention its existence. Dawnbails (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of Internet history. An early attempt at proveding strong security to ordinary uses.--agr (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest keep it's not well-sourced at the moment, but I'm finding a very small number of reviews and mentions in books - predominantly AUUG, but also two scholarly articles and a Slashdot review - that could potentially be added to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a majority of editors wanting to Keep this article but little work being done to improve sourcing which was mentioned as the primary problem in the nominator's statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added the scholarly refs, the magazine ref, and the slashdot ref (which is a minor secondary ref, and actually has a good primary ref deeper in it which, if the key can be verified, could be used for attributed quotes). I've left inline citations as an exercise for the reader. —siro χ o 10:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per siroxo's excellent work. See you all back here in 2027 for nomination #4, I suppose. -- Visviva (talk) 21:21, 2 July 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's a lot of support for renaming too, but it's not unanimous among keep supporting editors, and this isn't the right forum for that. Editors are encouraged to continue a move discussion on the article's talk page. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Patel (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Bad use of disambiguation page. When someone says "Sardar Patel", they unambiguously refer to Vallabhbhai Patel and not to random colleges or universities named after him. This may have been better off as List of places named after Vallabhbhai Patel (with much more information to be added) rather than a disambiguation page. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, no objection to renaming. I am not sure that they always do refer to Vallabhbhai Patel and not to one of the many colleges or universities named after him. I agree that the main topic of Sardar Patel should be the politician (so it is good that there is a redirect from Sardar Patel to Vallabhbhai Patel). But that does not mean that there should not be some kind of disambiguation page. I have no objection to the disambiguation page being moved List of places named after Vallabhbhai Patel.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its just an Indian thing, but I've never seen anyone say "Sardar Patel", "Pandit Nehru", or "Mahatma Gandhi" to refer to things named after them. If its a college or university or road, people always be specific like "Gandhi Road", "Nehru Planetarium", etc., the terms in itself are always fully unambiguous. And no one can prove otherwise. I also don't mind moving it to the red-linked title, but it being a dab page is unnecessary because of the scope of WP:DAB. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly redundant. While technically, it is a valid disambiguation page, everything on it is (or should be-I didn't check them all) in Vallabhbhai Patel#Other institutions and monuments already. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of things named after Vallabhbhai Patel (see Category:Lists of things named after Indian politicians) and replace the duplicate or near-duplicate list currently in Vallabhbhai Patel#Other institutions and monuments with a link to the list. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this appears to be a valid disambig page. How is this different from George Washington (disambiguation)? Like the biographical article George Washington, Sardar Patel goes to the right place and the disambig page collects other subjects with the same name such as universities. - Indefensible (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an WP:OSE argument, because as I said above, the term "Sardar Patel" is unambiguous. Plus, as Clarityfiend notes that it all is already in the article, so there is no need for a dab page anyway. Again, if someone wishes to split that portion out and create a list article, that's fine, but imo dab is a bad choice due to lack of ambiguity. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be the other way around in my opinion. Rather than listing every university named after him in the biographical article which is unnecessary clutter, they should all be listed on the disambig page which Sardar Patel can link to. Using other articles for comparison is also not without merit, we have precedent and standards. George Washington is rated a Good Article too, if anything we should be using a similar rule in this case to match. And if all of the disambig entries for George Washington are listed on his page, can you imagine how cluttered it would be? We should apply similar guidelines to Sardar Patel. - Indefensible (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an indefensible argument. The number of things named in honor of Washington is huge. Those named after Patel fit in his article; there would have to be more to warrant a standalone list. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even you admitted the subject "is a valid disambiguation page" above. Where then is the cutoff for a list to fit versus getting a disambiguation page? - Indefensible (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference. Dab pages are for (most often) unrelated things that go by the same title; these, however, are closely related. Dab pages also serve aas navigational aids. There's no need for that here, as they're in Patel's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main point though is the disambig page is valid. Your objection seems primarily based on length, however Sardar Patel is not a short article either and could use clean up. There is nothing wrong having this page, it should be kept. - Indefensible (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I concede Patel's article is rather long, so I've changed my lvote to rename as a list (like the lists of other Indian political figures in Category:Lists of things named after Indian politicians). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of places named after Vallabhbhai Patel, and undabbify. As a dab page this is arguably proscribed by WP:PARTIAL since indeed none of these places seem to be routinely called just "Sardar Patel" (which distinguishes this case from George Washington). Even if not strictly proscribed this is definitely a bit out of step with normal disambiguation practice and feels more like it should just be a list. -- Visviva (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "place" is a location, but not all of the entries on that page currently are places. - Indefensible (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Visviva and nom. A lot of these are WP:PTMs, and don't qualify for a DAB page; if the proposed title doesn't work, a title of List of places and institutions named after Vallabhbhai Patel might be better. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Deletion has not been proposed, nor is this nomination procedural. This type of concern could generally be handled on article talk pages, followed by an eventual WP:BOLD move. —siro χ o 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I do recognize the irony of "speedy" keeping a discussion that's weeks old already, just trying to make my comment clear on what I view the right process for such things is. —siro χ o 19:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically I did propose a deletion with a fallback to move. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:35, 7 July 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian-American television characters[edit]

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

WP:NOTDATA, WP:MILL. There’s a lot of Italian Americans on TV and there’s no point in exhaustively listing them with no meaningful context about their portrayal and significance. It also seems to be a case of WP:GREATWRONGS since the only details provided are either negative/unflattering character traits or occupations that are usually stereotypes— basically WP:OR cherrypicking for an implicit case that TV depicts Italian Americans negatively. Dronebogus (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Dronebogus (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Italy, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost entirely unsourced, indiscriminate list; the associated Category:Fictional Italian American people contains 112 pages, but not this one. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can add anything to a category. I just added it there. The fact someone forgot to do it before doesn't mean anything. It is not indiscriminate since it list the specific requirements to be added at the top of the article. Dream Focus 14:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valid information and navigational list, far more useful than the category for this since it offers far more information and helps people find what they are looking for. Only notable entries exist. The start of the article even says the requirements to be listed. To be included in this list, the character should be a main or frequently recurring character in a television series, and should have an article or section in Wikipedia. The character should be described as Italian-American in the text or categories. Dream Focus 14:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Dream Focus. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NLIST, the list topic is notable (eg [2][3] etc), the list is curated with clear inclusion criteria. And my own personal litmus, deleting this would make the encyclopedia worse. —siro χ o 11:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus and siroxo above. No NLIST issue, and doesn't seem to be anywhere near being a NOTDATA issue either. -- Visviva (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Classifying people by national/ethnic origin is widespread on WP and AFAIK nobody has serious suggested that should be stopped. These are notable characters, there are clear membership criteria, it should be possible to reference their status (probably less controversially than for actual people). A lot of the reasons for deletion seem irrelevant, and even if it's cherry-picked to show bad characters (is Joey Tribbiani that awful?), it can be fixed by editing and adding more entries. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus meets WP:NLIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:18, 8 July 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino superheroes[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list with a huge percentage of entries being non-notable or devoid of context. Even if cleaned up there’s no reason to have a list for this topic since no information can be provided by one that wouldn’t work better in prose or category format. Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE per nom. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Filipino superheroes shows enough valid entries for an article to exist. This article just needs to prune the non-notable entries. It could also be merged to a list for Category:Filipino comics characters. Dream Focus 07:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and limit to notable entries. There are enough notable entries to maintain a list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's a good enough list.

Keep. Meets WP:NLIST, the topic grouping is notable ([4][5][6]), inclusion criter is clear. Maybe a bit more curation is needed but not a reason for deletion. —siro χ o 11:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per siroxo and Dream Focus above. List topic seems fine as far as NLIST and INDISCRIMINATE. Not convinced that limiting the list to notable superheroes would be an improvement but the list does definitely have some problems, particularly with in-text hyperlinks and unreferenced entries. -- Visviva (talk) 21:55, 2 July 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. I see a consensus here to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish comic book characters[edit]

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

Arbitrary cross-category without evidence of notability that wouldn’t need to exist even if the topic was notable. Dronebogus (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. Dronebogus (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Judaism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. Not sure if a list is the best way to approach this, but "jewish" + "superhero" does seem to be a notable intersection: [7], [8], [9], [10]. It would probably work better as a prose article under a title like Jews in comic books Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection and after considering the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black superheroes, I am upgrading my comment to a Keep on the basis that this is a notable intersection. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Barnards (who gave a compelling delete reason, despite !voting to keep). You said it yourself that this would be better as a prose article. Also just a quick side note, the sources you're providing all talk about Jewish superheroes, but not all comic book characters generally, many of which aren't superheroes. Even restricting to that, even if it's a notable topic you could write an article about, it doesn't justify the existence of a list like this. A few random examples I looked at say nothing about this in their main articles, but are simply shoved into Category:Jewish superheroes with no justification (a pretty non-WP:DEFINING category to boot). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or simply redirect?) to List of fictional Jews. That topic is notable, this list is overly specific and unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough links to articles about the characters to justify a list. Category:Jewish superheroes and Category:Fictional Jews in comics exist and show notable entries for this list. Dream Focus 07:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NLIST, the topic grouping is notable ([11][12][13]. Criteria is clear, curation seems ok, maybe needs a bit more attention but no reason for deletion. —siro χ o 11:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not arbitrary. Meets WP:NLIST per sources identified. gidonb (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure if these cross categorizations are an obvious topic for an article. But I see enough reliable third-party sources to justify this article. Should be improved, not deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SignPlot[edit]

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

Google News only has [14] which is limited circulation, WP:AUD. There are COI tags on the article but I am not going to evaluate that allegation here. Rs chen 7754 20:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Rs chen 7754 20:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep After a quick google session, I managed to find a few secondary sources - I consider these RS, but they are narrow in scope to industry publication sand may not meet WP:SIGCOV. Ive worked them into the article for now. Cannot comment on COI tags, although the program's designer was also credited as a contributor to the NY art expo. Dfadden (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leave. I agree with the previous speaker. In any case, the article does not look like a commercial. In such cases, let's think about the sensations of a Googler. he will find the wiki article and read the information about the item that we have collected for him here. Or will not read if the article is deleted. Why do you always want to delete everything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyWeAll (talk • contribs) 23:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With changes since the nomination, seems to already be ok for GNG, and I think there may be even more sources beyond what DFadden found [15][16][17]. —siro χ o 11:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The reprinting of the same information across the te.20minut.ua and teren.in.ua articles, the only two sources presented as good in the keep-!voted source analysis, significantly undermines the case for keep. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Svitlana Boytsaniuk[edit]

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

The article fails considerably on the criteria of WP:GNG. There is any significant achievement in verifiable and reliable sources to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Chiserc (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof; nothing for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have not yet formulated an opinion on the merits of this specific article, but I found this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators as part of a batch of five new deletion nominations ~~by the same nominator~~, all of women academics. This is far out of proportion to the number of articles, or the number of new articles, on women academics. If this nominator is specifically targeting women for deletion, we have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The batch of women academic nominators had two different nominators. Of the two, the one I have been in contact with on my talk (User:Chiserc) appears to be unrepentant about the discriminatory effect caused by searching women's categories for deletion targets. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that Boytsaniuk does not appear to meet WP:PROF, although The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. could certainly be interpreted such that dean of dentistry qualifies. However, I don't think that's necessary, because she appears to pass GNG:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://te.20minut.ua/lyudi/u-golovi-bula-dumka-scho-robiti-yak-u-meduniversiteti-pochali-bezkosht-11682494.html			Not exclusively about Boytsaniuk, but about a project she led, and mentions her enough that I think it's significant	✔ Yes
https://medychna-akademia.tdmu.edu.ua/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83-%D1%81%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9/	Published by the medical school in which Boytsaniuk works			✘ No
https://teren.in.ua/news/u-ternopoli-vikladachi-studenti-ta-vipuskniki-stomatologichnogo-fakultetu-bezkoshtovno-likuyut-zubi-zahisnikam-i-pereselencyam_392972.html			Once again covering the project for soldiers and refugees which was led by Boytsianuk. Enough of the article focuses on _her_ thoughts and actions that I think it can be considered significant.	✔ Yes
https://ukurier.gov.ua/uk/articles/vishiti-simvoli-velikodnya-i-dobrochinnosti/		govt newspaper	passing mention	✘ No
https://t1news.tv/bezkoshtovnyj-stomatolog-u-ternopoli-studenty-ta-vykladachi-tnmu-shhobudnya-dopomagayut-voyinam-i-bizhenczyam/			Once again covering the aforementioned project, but this time without Boytsianuk's perspective; insignificant	✘ 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}}.

All the best, Akakievich (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, largely per Akakievich's analysis which I find persuasive. For benefit of future searchers/improvers, I would also note in passing that the name appears to be more commonly romanized as "Boitsaniuk". (Here is an English-language but probably non-RS writeup of her wartime project.) -- Visviva (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not meet NPROF (a dean of a school is never the highest-level administrative position), and the coverage above comprises two identical articles on free dentistry that contain very little independent coverage of her; most of it is quotes from her or otherwise repetition of what she has said/felt. The only content that can make an interview count towards GNG is that in which the author independently discusses the topic significantly and in detail, and that is not the case here. And even if either of those articles was SIGCOV, GNG still requires multiple such sources demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED attention over a lengthy period. That is definitely not achieved here either. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete largely per JoelleJay. The two sources Akakievich list as GNG-passing above are the identical story so that is only one source. I do see enough SIGCOV of Boytsaniuk in this article for it to count toward GNG, however this alone is not enough. Willing to reconsider if more SIGCOV is found so please ping me. Frank Anchor 16:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement on the whether the sources analysis supports notability enough to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 24 June 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!} 23:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is written like a resume and seems promotional. The article can be rewritten if there are indeed enough reliable sources to support notability and provide content. - Indefensible (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: 1. The two articles cited are not identical (and there are others as well, e.g.), but JoelleJay's WP:SUSTAINED argument is valid. 2. Here is a piece on the subject's remarks on the occasion of the dental school's 15th anniversary, but it suffers from much the same infirmities as the other articles. 3. On review of the WT:NPROF archives I am not convinced that there has ever been a consensus to exclude deans of professional schools from NPROF#6; rather there seems to be a rough consensus that such positions should be entitled to some weight, but not conclusive weight. 4. Overall, it seems that we have perhaps a near miss on both the GNG and NPROF. Rather than rigid legalism, I think the better practice when dealing with an article that just misses multiple notability criteria is to consider the notability picture as a whole, and on the whole it seems to me that this article has sufficient encyclopedic merit that it should be kept. -- Visviva (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, NPROF does not entitle lesser administrative positions any weight towards C6. She does not "just miss" NPROF notability or GNG -- the new article you link is a press release from her university so definitely cannot be used for the latter. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on this, the consensus over the last 5+ years at AfD has been that being dean of a school does not count towards notability.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think Visviva makes a good point in that, if we have borderline/questionable notability under two guidelines (GNG and PROF in this case), we shouldn't rush to delete. I'd also add that the subject is Ukrainian scientist at a Ukrainian institution who appears to have published almost exclusively in Ukrainian and Russian. Searching for sources in English/with her Romanised name, will obviously result in an extreme under-estimate of how much coverage there is. – Joe (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe, she is very, very far from meeting NPROF. C6 is not a cumulative criterion whereby meeting lesser standards can partially contribute to notability; either the subject holds the president/VC position, or in extremely rare cases a lesser post is considered sufficient due to it being at like Harvard. Dean of dentistry at a minor, low-ranked university is definitely not enough. The fact that she doesn't even come remotely close to passing any other NPROF criteria makes it even clearer that this is not a borderline case. GNG is also not achieved through a handful of interviews containing almost zero independent coverage that were conducted regarding the same event. If we lowered our standards to admit this bio, how many tens of thousands of American deans would now qualify? JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I have made this Afd nomination, I have done one last attempt to look for new sources. Before a couple of weeks, I add some comments on Akakievich's talk page, regarding the issue of WP:SUSTAINED which is evident with the current sources and what it's mentioned as "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual". Her academic profile on Google Scholar shows h-index of 5, generally considered very low for academic standards. Looking for her name with Cyrillic script, as Бойцанюк Світлана Іванівна, I couldn't find anything more than other users found, interviews as dean of dentistry faculty and her war-related project. The only criterion that may establish notability is the NPROF#6, as Visviva and Akakievich said, that "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society". Although she is the dean of a faculty, the issue is that her university, Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University, may not possess the criteria to be considered as a major academic institution. The university is not included in any major university rankings (QS, Times Higher Education) and is only 93th among Ukrainian universities in Webometrics, 102th in this ranking. Actually, it's not even among the best 11 Ukrainian universities in Medicine in this ranking. The fact that she is a dean of a faculty may not be enough, since the university is considered as local/regional academic institution and not a major one. Finally, I tried to see notability as a whole, but I couldn't see anything that justify notability as professor/academic or generally as a person. Chiserc (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is based on primary or affiliated sources, she is an ordinary associate professor from an ordinary regional university, she does not have a habilitation (it is necessary in Ukraine to be a professor), she has no noticeable scientific achievements.--Yakudza (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is written in the context of the subject as an academic, but, despite its assertions of number of papers and such, there is little evidence of impact that would satisfy the PROF guides in terms of either leadership or scholarship. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Menkov[edit]

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

I am not finding that this artist meets notability criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. A BEFORE search reveals only social media or other trivial mentions, nothing in-depth could be found. The current article sourcing does not support notability, it consists of dead links, a few press releases, name-check mentions. It seems he was nominated for a few non-notable awards, but that is not enough to sustain an encyclopedia article. No significant exhibitions or any collections. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mold painting which is related. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Visual arts, and North Macedonia. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking in substantial coverage (Macedonian Wikipedia article doesn't provide any additional sources that could be of use), no major international or national awards or recognition in the field, and no verifiable claims of inclusion in a notable museum collection. Moreover, it often uses a promotional tone and WP:PEACOCK phrasing to add a veneer of notability, like with was one of the few artist selected to exhibit in the Tenth international Paratissima Turin, the most visited contemporary art event in Italy. Exhibited at the prestigious Osten Biennial of Drawing, 42nd World Gallery of Drawing – Skopje 2014 and received the Special Award by the Jury(Nickolas Thaw, USA – President, Anita Haldemann, Switzerland – Member, Pavle Pejovic, Montenegro – Member). Ppt91 ^talk 00:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some claims to notability here, even if the puffery tends to obscure them somewhat. It is hard to assess how strong the claims are but the exhibitions and awards are mostly youth awards and events. Apart from the Francophone Games, none of them seem to have articles so they are unlikely to confer notability. The references seem to be half dead and not all of them even mention him. I don't speak the languages but when searching the references some of them mention him only once and might well be passing mentions. In addition to the puffery, I notice that we have "the 7th Francophone Games" and "the 2013 Jeux de la Francophonie" listed as if they are two different things when they a literally the exact same thing. The Google search links don't help much either. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:20, 8 July 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. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Magazine (Pakistan)[edit]

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

Coverage in mostly in unreliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Fashion, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Its really hard to find coverage for a media in other media. But the title of Pakistan Today: Mahira Khan, Hamza Ali Abbasi sizzle on DIVA Magazine cover and the line in The Nation: Khan was earlier this month recognized as the 2020’s Best Actor for both television and web series by Diva Magazine Pakistan ... suggest the magazine is somewhat notable. Also some Urdu sources mention the magazine in a similar way: Urdu News, Daily Pakistan, Dawn TV news. Insight 3 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the rationale above. All of the given sources provide minimal coverage. WP:GNG says that we need significant coverage. No coverage about magazine's history, production, etc.. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 14:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not every topic can meet the WP:GNG's requirements as it is, that is why we have additional criteria. There is an essay with some reasonable arguments: Why we need separate criteria for media. Insight 3 (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 24 June 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!} 22:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references seem questionable but agree with above, there might be enough for inclusion. It may be harder to find supporting reliable sources for a subject in a market like Pakistan as well. - Indefensible (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Insight 3 and Indefensible. Seems to have considerable encyclopedic merit, and to at least brush up against the GNG and WP:NME#Newspapers, magazines and journals. -- Visviva (talk) 22:50, 2 July 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 been pointed out that the nominator has changed their opinion to Keep and since there is no support any longer for Deletion, I think we can consider this nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Vidya Prakashananda Giri[edit]

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

Fail GNG, not a notable person. I couldn't find any significant coverage. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 17:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 17:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:MRRaja001, Swami Vidya Prakashananda Giri is a notable person. I have included the notable references including a the news report by The Hindu news paper. Also the work done by him on Bhagavadgita is mentioned by third party book published by reputed publishers. Also the regional news papers Eenadu covered full article on him. May I know why these references are not good enough for a notable person? Ravichandra (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added a biography reference published by TTD (Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam), a reputed publication notable for religious books. - Ravichandra (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please share all the references that can be considered primary references here for discussion. Thank you - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 03:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a first reference, I would like to mention the article by The Hindu. This article discusses about Vidya Prakasananda at length along with the Ashram that he has started.
Second is a book where E. Sreedharan mentions his work Gita Makaranda.
There was another article in this biography which was reproduced from The news paper Zamin Rytu. Unfortunately, I could not trace the original source.

For further references, I will try to find the news paper archives and list it here.- Ravichandra (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The First reference to Hindu Newspaper is talking about the Sukabrahma Ashram that he founded. It cannot be taken as the primary reference. In the second reference even though Sridharan is referring to his book it cannot be takeb as primary source since Sridharan didn't describe anything about Vidyaprakasananda Giri. The last reference which is a biography book about him was self-published by their own organization Sukabrahma Ashram so it cannot be taken as a reference. Thanks. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that there was a lot of news published about him during his life time. I personally read many articles. But the problem is there are no news archives of these news reports. Earlier there used to be one website operated by Press Academy of Andhra Pradesh. But it is no longer operational. So the reference may not be immediately available. If you think this article is not worth to be in the main space, please move it to a draft. I will be definitely trying to find primary references for the same. - Ravichandra (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per these references and some more reserch with specific keywords. I found him notable. So I propose to keep this article. I will help to improve the citations and references to this article. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 02:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I note the nominator is now saying "Keep". Shouldn't the AfD therefore be considered withdrawn? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IC 1838[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO as coverage is only from databases and large scale surveys with thousands of listings that don't provide in depth coverage. C messier (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 1 July 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 The 1975. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross MacDonald[edit]

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

Bundled nomination for redirection (not deletion) to The 1975:

(Rosguill's {{Notability}} tag has been contested, so a blank-and-redirect would be controversial; note AfD can be used for this per WP:ATD-R.)

These articles on performers from the 1975 contain almost no content about the individual, as no such content exists. A few sentences under "Artistry" or "Personal life" shed a little bit of detail that could be incorporated into an existing article if relevant, but almost all of the article content is duplicated and not specific to each member (as they grew up together, have performed together their entire adult life and have not generated much media attention as individuals).

The lead singer Matty Healy is an exception (and not nominated) as his media persona, stage persona, personal life and political commentary has garnered significant, sustained coverage. — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:THREE list would be really helpful here – there's a lot of sources to dig through. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarmory: for MacDonald, there's hardly three sources that mention him separately. Probably it's 1, 2, 3. For Hann: 1, 2, 3. For Daniel there's a little more: 1, 2, 3. — Bilorv (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to The 1975; based on the discographies listed in the articles, Ross MacDonald and Adam Hann don't have a prayer of meeting the WP:MUSICBIO criterion of meeting WP:GNG for work independent of The 1975. It's not inconceivable that George Daniel's independent work could produce GNG's worth of coverage, but said coverage does not appear to exist at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to The 1975. Those who frequent the Musicians AfD page will recall a long and brutal history of attempted articles on the band's frontman Matty Healy, and one was eventually accepted because he has media notice for activities outside the band. That does not justify full articles on these three other members, and each article's attempt to fill space with a general history of the whole band indicates that they do not have their own notability outside the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to The 1975, per the reasons above on the lack of the other members notability outside of the band. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to The 1975 per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's obvious disruption going on here. Can't !vote because I don't know who any of the members are, but I need to point that out. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby new accounts are attempting to close this AfD preemptively for inscrutable reasons. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mold painting[edit]

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

This article on a fine art painting process using mold to paint on surfaces does not meet criteria for notability per WP:GNG. A BEFORE search reveals lots of hits on how to get rid of mold on paintings, but virtually nothing about using mold as a painting medium. The current soucing is weak, as the first source does mention the process, but the other two sources are simply press releases about the work of "mold painting" by the article creator (whose work is also represented in the image in the article which was uploaded as their "own work") so it looks like this is also a COI entry. Netherzone (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goran Menkov which is related. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Goran Menkov. For this to be a thing multiple artists need to be using it in a notable way. If it is just the one guy then the most it merits is a redirect, and I'm not even sure about that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough WP:RS to establish art historical notability on its own, it's just another non-traditional/experimental medium in abstraction. I think that Fungi in art might be one possible place to discuss it, although I say this with caution, because that article has a plethora of its own issues that require extensive editing. Ppt91 ^talk 00:43, 2 July 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 Nomination withdrawn‎. Star Mississippi 12:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAIR Girls[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and both sources are the company website, failing WP:ORG. WP:BEFORE check shows a lack of secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is a stub but found enough references online to suggest notability. - Indefensible (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. POV is behind this nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minimum level of citing in reliable sources is enough for keeping this page. --BoraVoro (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - as new sources have come to light @Let'srun Let'srun (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD R3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under one roof Filmography[edit]

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

The article has no sources and I can't find any evidence that this series of films ever existed. My searches are coming up with nothing at all. The articles Went to California and Late Dinner claim that the films were released in the US and Japan and many notable people were involved in their production, so coverage should be easy to find if these were ever genuine films. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently deleted already, so AfD no longer needed I guess. - Indefensible (talk) 20:02, 1 July 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 Hori7on. So Why 18:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ng (Filipino singer)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBANDMEMBER criteria. – robertsky (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Philippines, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, per @Titopao
Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 09:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, though redirect instead to Hori7on instead per WP:BANDMEMBER.

EdrianJustine (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Honestly, it's too early for him to have his own article. The group isn't even a year old. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hori7on as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hori7on, where he's a member of. Fails WP:MUSICBIO outside the band. SBKSPP (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hori7on per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:35, 8 July 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) The person who loves reading (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appleseed Foundation[edit]

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

Page fails WP:GNG and also reads heavily like an advertisement, violating WP:CORP. WP:BEFORE check reveals a lack of secondary sources Let'srun (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found some references for the article, the subject is probably notable enough to qualify for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with current referencing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It satisfies WP:GNG although there's promotional language needed to be cleaned up. See the source assessment table for more details. The person who loves reading (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.law.com/international-edition/2022/08/15/legal-nonprofit-pushes-law-firms-to-engage-in-pro-bono-work-in-mexico/	?	?	? Cannot open the website.	? Unknown
https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-inspire-change-contributions-reach-300m-as-league-strengthens-efforts-to-adv	~ NFL is somewhat affiliated with Appleseed Foundation.		~ Only partial coverage in this source.	~ Partial
https://www.nfl.com/causes/inspire-change/resources/grant-partners/alabama-appleseed	~ per reason above.		Only a few sentences talking about the subject of the article.	✘ No
https://hlrecord.org/what-every-harvard-law-school-student-should-know-about-appleseed/	Harvard Law Record is not affiliated with Appleseed Foundation.		A long article covered many details about the foundation.	✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20200524120918/https://www.appleseednetwork.org/view-all-centers.html	The foundation's own website.		Only listed Appleseed centres.	✘ No
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/unaccompanied-child-migrants-border-patrol-screening/			~ Only partial coverage.	~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20221002084051/https://dcist.com/story/13/11/13/new-dc-appleseed-report-card-shows/				✔ Yes
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/15/homeless-youth-slip-through-cracks-disjointed-support-system/	Texas Appleseed has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune.		~	✘ No
https://kansasreflector.com/2022/02/12/kansas-broadband-leaders-tout-ongoing-programs-future-initiatives-to-bridge-digital-divide/				✘ No
https://ny.chalkbeat.org/2017/1/11/21099504/nyu-s-david-kirkland-explains-the-transformation-needed-to-integrate-the-city-s-schools				✘ No
https://www.boston.com/news/schools/2020/09/17/ayanna-pressley-katherine-clark-letters-school-discipline/			Maybe partial coverage, but I think that there's significant coverage.	✔ Yes
https://www.masslive.com/news/2020/09/in-massachusetts-black-girls-are-39-times-more-likely-to-face-school-discipline-than-white-counterparts-report-shows.html			Maybe partial coverage.	✔ Yes
https://www.wgbh.org/news/national-news/2021/07/14/inadequate-interpretation-services-at-mass-dcf-lead-to-risk-of-wrongful-family-separation-complaint-alleges				✔ Yes
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}}.

Keep per WP:HEY, it now satisfies WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 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. Sufficient consensus exists to delete this article. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The End of a Married Man[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Only 1 source found on both the English and Arabic pages, which is the same article, and it is an interview, not a review DonaldD23 talk to me 16:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Egypt. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nominator regarding WP:NFILM and is not notable otherwise.User:Let'srun 16:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:43, 8 July 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. Sufficient consensus exists to delete this article. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gouripur Gaon[edit]

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

The article lacks reliable references, and the place does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references to support notability or quality. - Indefensible (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Earth shows a "Gouripur Gaon village hall" in a rural cluster of several dozen buildings. We have a Gauripur article for another town in Assam but it's not in the same district. Our Gauripur disambiguation page seems to imply that "Gauripur" and "Gouripur" may be interchangeable.

The 2011 Indian census does not list any village named "Gouripur Gaon" in the Morigaon district of Assam state. There is a "Gouripur" elsewhere in Assam, population: 205.

(Note: the Indian Census page links to a massive Excel spreadsheet with statistics on the 29,395 villages in Assam province. The 48.4 MB file downloads very slowly after several tries)

Wiktionary defines gaon as the Hindi word for "village".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:21, 3 July 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. There is sufficient consensus to delete this article at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Andonov[edit]

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

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any sportsperson to have their own article. My Bulgarian searches did not produce any WP:SIGCOV. The best sources that I could find were Gong, Blitz and BTV, all of which are reliable sources but none address Andonov in any detail at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. --Nk (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability and little to no WP:RS coverage to support keeping this article. I vote to delete unless additional sources come to light. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A soccer player notable by reason of an affiliation with a notable club. Amaekuma (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Nswix (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 15:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Forde[edit]

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

Mostly unreferenced article, topic seems to have limited notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of vagrant birds of the Iberian Peninsula[edit]

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

Iberian peninsula does not have a bird list, because it's too large for a decent list and not a zoogeographically important list. Even if it did, all other "birds of place" lists just mark accidentals with a tag instead of splitting them into a separate list. AryKun (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Lists, Portugal, and Spain. AryKun (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is SELECT FROM (List of birds of Spain || List of birds of Portugal) WITH (status="accidental"), or close enough :p. We do avoid this Venn diagram-like approach to making lists whenever possible, for obvious reasons of duplication. (I'm not on board with the other nom argument here; if anything, the Iberian Peninsula is a more sensible zoogeographic unit than Spain or Portugal, but as it is we do have this covered with the existing articles.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We’ve always made taxa checklists by political boundaries; it’s how the world works. What I meant is that the Iberian Peninsula is not zoogeographically important enough to warrant an exception, the way an island like Hispaniola or New Guinea might be. It doesn’t have particularly distinctive fauna compared to the rest of Europe or North Africa, and so doesn’t need a list any more than the Horn of Africa or Malay Peninsula would. AryKun (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Elmidae. I like lists but duplication just leads to long-term maintenance and quality issues. We have >6 million articles to watch and maintain for our readers.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will understand if this article is deleted; although more information has been added about these accidental birds (such as some information about them and how they ended up in the Iberian Peninsula) and also about their status (with the latest codes according to the IUCN Red List); thank you for your observations! Srr9810 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn’t the quality of the article, it’s that the article itself is not notable and duplicates what you can find on other pages. This is just all the species in the Spain and Portugal lists that have an accidental tag. AryKun (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that an article on a more general subject should be created first. desmay (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If editors are interested in revisiting information from this article for merging to kakapo-related articles, I am happy to restore it in userspace. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of kākāpō[edit]

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

Zero notability as a whole. No reason why kakapos are notable enough for a list collating each individual bird. All of the references used are primary, because no secondary source discusses this in a way that would justify a list. AryKun (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and New Zealand. AryKun (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I would take some issue with the nomination statement: "Zero notability as a whole. No reason why kakapos are notable enough for a list collating each individual bird." This is a species with a world population of 248, every single one of which is named, tracked and monitored. The Kākāpō recovery programme itself is highly notable. Obviously almost all the specific material in the list is primary-sourced (and there seem to be big gaps in the sourcing, too.) That's a problem, but I think it is mainly taken care of by the fact that the list topic itself is indisputably notable and extensively covered by secondary and tertiary sources. I think an argument could be made that this list is a reasonable extension of the coverage we give at the above link, especially since it is not available anywhere else in this collated form - this seems brought together from lots of individual nuggets, making it a valuable resource. See List of giant squid specimens and sightings (2001–2014) for a prime example of this kind of added value (admittedly that one is much stronger in secondary coverage). Sourcing for the article does need to be cleaned up though - there needs to be a ref for every one of these entries. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The recovery program is notable. A list listing every kakapo that has existed since the 1970's is not. AryKun (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This list and the topic in general are quite interesting, but I also find it absurd to list every one of them alive past a certain year. I highly doubt any casual reader would take the time to check a certain entry on this list. They would just scroll through. I am not an expert on this, so I'm not sure on its significance and will just note this as a vote for "weak" deletion. Aintabli (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a database, nor is it a studbook. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke from orbit. I was flabbergasted to see that this list has existed for almost twenty years. This is an utterly indefensible pile of WP:NOT, made worse by the fact the majority of it is sourced to Facebook and Instagram updates from the preservation program itself. Normally, I'd say more, but let's just let common sense take care of this one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and potentially merge some information into the Kākāpō Recovery programme section. Really silly article--fun to read but clearly not what Wikipedia is for. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dantes[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet relevant notability criteria; a few mentions of his name on cast lists, but unable to find significant coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not seem to meet on notability or quality. - Indefensible (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR per nom. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE. SBKSPP (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:12, 8 July 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!} 20:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of child superheroes[edit]

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

Another “list of superheroes by non-defining trait” article. No evidence age is a notable factor in superhero fiction, or that Aang from Avatar TLA is even a superhero for that matter, nor any explanation for why 19 is treated as the age of the majority when in most places its 18. Dronebogus (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extensive original research with few sources to back up entries. Category:Child superheroes should also be scrutinized for its many dubious entries, such as Hello Kitty and numerous non-characters. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello kitty’s a superhero?! Dronebogus (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply pure fictional cruft, unlike the lists by ethnicity. I don't believe there is something particularly encyclopedic about whether a superhero's young or old, so it falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not indiscriminate if there is a set requirement to be listed. Notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, and below a certain age. Dream Focus 15:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough valid entries to be a legitimate navigational list. Category:Child superheroes has over a hundred entries. Pruning of any entries that are not notable should be done. Being a child is a notable aspect of these characters, that far more relevant than sorting by race or nationality. Dream Focus 15:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether the topic satisfies WP:LISTN - if child superheroes are discussed as an independently notable subject that would potentially be article worthy. I'm not sure that's the case, but if you have proof let me know. Otherwise, this article fails LISTN regardless of how many entries the category has. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also getting the strong feeling that Category:Child superheroes is an arbitrary intersection that should be upmerged into Category:Fictional children and Category:Superheroes, but shouldn't exist as a combination of both. So, being in that category does not prove or guarantee a single iota of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That says that is "One accepted reason", but not the only one. Read the second paragraph of that.
There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists ... Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

Dream Focus 22:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing any indication of notability of the group here either. We have a category, it's enough. – Joe (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tons of original research going on here (like many of these "List of X Superheroes" many of the entries are huge stretches to refer to them as "superheroes"), and tons of non-notable entries. There are no actual sources included in the article actually discussing the concept of "child superheroes" as a concept or grouping, and there is not even a parent article on the topic here that could be argued this is a spinout of, making it a failure of WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thobo Kgoboge[edit]

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

His claim to fame seems to be playing half an hour of a 2-0 loss to Mozambique. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources are Sunday Standard, Mmegi 1 and Mmegi 2, all of which are trivial mentions of Kgoboge. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Botswana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 18:34, 5 July 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. Editors have found that the article has been significantly improved since its initial nomination and it now demonstrates notability. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samahang Ilokano[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a student organization with no strong claim to passing WP:ORG. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on their sourceability -- but this cites no references at all, and has been tagged for lacking sources since 2007 without ever having any new sources added. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Philippines. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mariano Marcos State University In addition to the original comments about a lack of sources, the group's webpage is defunct. I found no sources through Google.v{[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Samahang Ilokano is not mentioned at that page. Avoid surprise... (And unless something changes, I'm in the delete camp)Naraht (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm betting that even in Mariano Marcos State University, the org isn't significant enough. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hold. I've found a few actual references (manila standard newspaper, philstar). Also, as far as I'm concerned Ilocano and Ilokano are both used and references apply under both names.Naraht (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks to your discovery of the dual spelling, I too have found newspaper sources that have been added. At first, I thought I was doing well to discover 24 chapters only to learn that there are more than 400 around the world.

Keep - The article needs more references, but at least it now has several. Thanks to those who have started searching for more. It should remain an active page, and a work in progress while this is sorted out. Even if it has recently gone dormant, it may meet the bar of notability. Jax MN (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jax MN, what is the info that it has gone dormant? Frankly an ethnic fraternity with strong connections into the community and, IMO, a weak central structure is likely to stay active short of acts by the Philippine government that are *highly* unlikely, and even then the overseas groups would likely stay active.Naraht (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht, I noted that only as an extreme outside possibility, and did not mean to infer that the group was dormant. I agree with your sensibilities on the unlikelihood of dormancy. It looks to me as if they are quite active, even if they don't have a working website. Further, the group appears notable because of age, number of participants over the years, and extensive activity over the years. Jax MN (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an international organization, not a local or regional group as previously believed. It has more than 400 chapters and at least a million members, supporting its claim of being a significant Filipino cultural organization. Sources have been added to the article that support its notability. I only added a few sources but find there to be many more out there, especially when using spelling variations. Rublamb (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ORG per WP:HEY. Sources in the article are reliable enough, with some in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kafeneion[edit]

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

Purely local coverage focussed primarily on recent opening. The likelihood a popup that has been open for six weeks being notable is slim. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. This restaurant opened in May, a little over a month ago. The coverage is extremely minimal. Generally speaking, most restaurants are featured in at least one or two minor articles in online newspapers or magazines, and others are subject to reviews, yet none of this is enough to pass WP:NCORP. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After careful consideration, I support its deletion for the following reasons: limited notability due to primarily local coverage, a short operational history that raises doubts about long-term impact, and i believe promotional language that goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. I kindly request that the page be reviewed for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you for considering my viewpoint. Ahoj Ashu (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is local and routine for restaurants and there is no evidence whatsoever that there will be sustained regional interest. Fails NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only open 6 weeks and deserves an article? Coverage is local in Melbourne's newspaper the Age. Restaurants need long-standing coverage in wider sources. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP or WP:CORPDEPTH --Devoke water 16:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Udayagiriya Vidyalaya[edit]

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

Created in 2011 by an WP:SPA that seems to represent the school. I could find no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NORG based on my English and Sinhala (උදයගිරිය විද්‍යාලය) searches. Best source was Air Force, which mentions the school once in passing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 line unreferenced article that fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Behar Berisha[edit]

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

I can't find evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Regio Fussball is a trivial mention. I've revived the two dead links in the article but both are examples of trivial coverage: see Gazeta Dita and Illyria Press, neither of which discuss Berisha in any detail and merely list him among other players. BeSoccer is just a database source so doesn't confer notability, it records him plying his trade in the 2. Liga Interregional, the amateur fifth tier of Swiss football, so it's not surprising that there's so little written about him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Albania, Kosovo, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rufat Balakishiyev[edit]

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

I am not able to locate any reliable sources addressing Balakishiyev directly and in detail. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; I couldn't find any indication of SIGCOV in my BEFORE search. Jogurney (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ionuț Movileanu[edit]

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

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any sportsperson to have their own article. The sources cited fall way short of requirements. The best sources that I can find are Digi Sport, a trivial mention in a match report about scoring a goal, Red Bull, which mentions him once, and Monitorul, which also mentions him only once. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 18:13, 5 July 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 appears to have been a rough consensus found to keep this article based on new in-depth sources discovered. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus Hotel Taichung[edit]

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

Sources in the article are mostly database pages. Google Books search turned up some mentions, but I didn't see anything more than one paragraph in travel guides. May fail WP:NCORP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Taiwan. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. You, Xiaoyan 游筱燕 (2021-08-19). "永豐棧負債逾三十億元，台中何家急變現" [Tempus Hotel Taichung has more than NT$3 billion in debt, and the He family in Taichung is in a hurry to cash out]. 財訊 [Wealth Magazine] (in Chinese). No. 640. pp. 74–75. Retrieved 2023-07-01 – via Google Books.
  The article's opening sentences note: "台中望族何家所創辦的永豐棧酒店，過去以歐美日商務客為主，在引進阿利海產後，獨特的台式熱炒餐廳帶動營運成長，惟近年競爭劇烈、疫情搗亂,酒店營運也陷入困境。"
  From Google Translate: "Tempus Hotel Taichung, founded by the famous Taichung He family, used to have mainly European, American and Japanese business customers. After the introduction of Ali Seafood, the unique Taiwanese hot-fried restaurant drove the growth of operations. However, in recent years, the competition has been fierce and the pandemic has disrupted the operation of the hotel, which is in trouble."
2. Liu, Meien 劉美恩 (2023-05-12). "永豐棧酒店5月19日喜迎試營運限定體驗價2380元起" [Yongfengzhan Hotel starts trial operation on May 19th, limited experience price starts from NT$2,380]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-07-01.
  The article notes: "永豐棧酒店位於台灣大道二段689號，自1997年開始營運，為台中早期指標性五星級酒店，本館共有250間客房，提供多達20種房型。永豐棧酒店推估平均房價約在4500元，第一年平均住房率可以來到6成。"
  From Google Translate: "Tempus Hotel Taichung is located at No. 689, Section 2, Taiwan Boulevard. It has been in operation since 1997. It is an early indicator five-star hotel in Taichung. There are 250 rooms in the hotel, providing as many as 20 room types. Tempus Hotel Taichung estimates that the average room price is about NT$4,500, and the average occupancy rate in the first year can reach 60%."
3. Xia, Shuxian 夏淑賢 (2022-12-31). "永豐棧酒店停業衝擊，安泰銀增提9.5億呆帳準備" [The impact of the closure of Tempus Hotel Taichung. Entie Commercial Bank raises NT$950 million bad debt provisions]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-12-31. Retrieved 2023-07-01.
  The article notes: "有26年歷史的台中知名老牌飯店永豐棧酒店，日前爆發租賃與經營糾紛停業，授信永豐棧酒店原經營者豐昱國際公司的安泰銀，在對方未正常繳息下，於昨（30）日決定大舉增提9.57億元呆帳準備，據悉，安泰銀與另一共同授信的遠雄人壽，已研擬在明年1月該筆授信打入逾放後，展開債權確保行動，不排除聲請拍賣價值約有30億元的永豐棧酒店不動產抵債。"
  From Google Translate: "Tempus Hotel Taichung, a well-known old hotel in Taichung with a history of 26 years, was closed due to a lease and management dispute. ) decided to increase the bad debt provision by NT$957 million. It is reported that Entie Commercial Bank and Farglory Life Insurance, another joint credit line, have planned to start the credit guarantee action after the credit line is over-released in January next year. It is not ruled out Apply for the auction of the real estate of Tempus Hotel Taichung worth about NT$3 billion to pay off debts."
4. Huang, Caijuan 黃彩娟 (1997-01-26). "中市永豐棧麗緻酒店開幕，個人化服務見長，刺激市場競爭" [Taichung's Tempus Hotel opens. Personalized service is good. Stimulates market competition.]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "昨天台永豐棧麗緻酒店正式開幕，催化台中旅館業的競爭氣氛，不過，該飯店希望以提升台中地區旅遊價值，包裝適當旅遊產品的方式，擴大台中旅館市場，為台中旅遊業帶來新契機。永豐棧麗緻酒店位在台中市中港路二段九號，擁有二百間客房，由永豐棧建設投資興建，委託台北亞都飯店所屬麗緻管理顧問公司全權經營，這也是「麗緻連鎖旅館系統」成立的第一家加盟飯店。"
  From Google Translate: "The official opening of the Tempus Hotel Taichung yesterday has catalyzed the competitive atmosphere in the hotel industry in Taichung. However, the hotel hopes to expand the Taichung hotel market by enhancing the tourism value of the Taichung area and packaging appropriate tourism products, so as to bring new opportunities to the Taichung tourism industry. opportunity. The Tempus Hotel Taichung is located at No. 9, Section 2, Zhonggang Road, Taichung City. It has 200 guest rooms. It was invested and built by Yongfeng Construction, and entrusted with the full management of the Landis Management Consulting Company, which is affiliated to the Yadu Hotel in Taipei. The first franchised hotel established by Hotel System."
5. Song, Jiansheng 宋健生 (2009-02-27). "與麗緻飯店劃清界線永豐棧酒店揮軍墾丁" [Draw a clear line with the Landis Hotel. Tempus Hotel Taichung. Swinging Army to Kenting]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. A11.
  The article notes: "台中永豐棧麗緻酒店昨（26）日更名為「永豐棧酒店」，與麗緻飯店系統正式切割，永豐棧酒店董事長何豐棧同時宣布，將揮軍南下，搶攻墾丁飯店與餐飲市場。"
  From Google Translate: "Tempus Hotel Taichung Landis Hotel changed its name to "Tempus Hotel" yesterday (26th), officially cutting off from the system of Landis Hotel. He Fengzhan, the chairman of Tempus Hotel, announced at the same time that he would send troops south to attack the Kenting Hotel and catering market."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tempus Hotel Taichung (traditional Chinese: 永豐棧酒店; simplified Chinese: 永丰栈酒店) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these sources. Just to double check, is there more sigcov than just these single paragraphs in each article? Single paragraphs aren't usually enough to pass sigcov, imo, but you could also just be quoting a small snippet, so I wanted to double check. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are far more than these single paragraphs in each article. You 2021, for example, is a two-page article in a magazine. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, stub but seems to have references to support inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 01:43, 2 July 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Acts of the 53rd New Zealand Parliament[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDB. Primarily consists of hundreds of redlinks to non-notable laws which in all likelihood, never will be notable. It also unnecessarily duplicates a large part of List of statutes of New Zealand (2017–present). Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and New Zealand. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kia ora @Mako001. It is a task of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Law task force/To do to split the subsidiaries by parliamentary term, not government. This is consistent with other jurisdictions e.g. List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Matt (Talk) 11:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why duplicate the content then? Seems rather redundant. Also, why does it apparently serve to direct article development (by including hundreds of redlinks) when most redlinked topics are entirely non-notable? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It’s splitting, not duplicating. If the content is still in the original list, please delete it. Schwede 66 18:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and LISTN easily and by a wide margin. There is a very large number of books and periodical articles about New Zealand law. Statutes constitute approximately half the law of New Zealand (the other half being case law). Accordingly, approximately half the content of all New Zealand law books are about the statutes. These statutes have received very significant coverage in a very large number of books and periodicals. Having a list of New Zealand statutes does not violate WP:NOT. The list satisfies WP:LISTPURP as it is "a valuable information source" and is useful for navigation, already has a large number of blue links, and will have more in the future. A large number of the individual Acts individually satisfy GNG and are individually notable. There are scans of some of the books and periodical articles in, amongst other places, Google Books, Google Scholar, Hathi Trust, the Internet Archive, NZLII and Hein Online, and the unscanned books are generally held in hard copy in the National Library of New Zealand and available from booksellers. James500 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

In some cases you will have to search for the names of individual Acts etc. James500 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete this or trim List of statutes of New Zealand (2017–present) to be those 2017 to 2019 only. If the NZ Wikiproject wishes to reorganize the legislation to be by government, that's fine, but identical content must not be duplicated in both parliament- and year-based lists. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. List of statutes of New Zealand (2017–present) has been moved to List of Acts of the 52nd New Zealand Parliament. For the avoidance of doubt, duplication and overlap are potential grounds for merger rather than deletion, this list appears to have content that was not originally in the other list [25] [26] [27] [28], and the effect of WP:CWW is that we cannot "delete and merge". James500 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  In that case keep, though I don't think the existing 15 lists really need to be split into more than 50 of them. Maybe just for more recent ones, or do 1st–5th, 6th–10th Parliaments or something. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vardhan Puri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor, having acted in only 1 movie, thereby failing WP:NACTOR. All his upcoming movies have been shelved as per [29]. His claim to fame is as the grandson of acclaimed actor Amrish Puri, but since notability is not inherited, it should not get to remain. Jupitus Smart 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Jupitus Smart 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteUnfortunately, all of his upcoming movies have been shelved, and it is uncertain if they will resume production or be released. With only one lead role to his credit, the actor does not currently meet the criteria to be considered notable. It might be more appropriate to wait and create the article in the future when these films, where the actor is in a lead role, are released.AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at the very worst, redirect. I'm seeing adequate coverage of him in The Tribune, Dec 01, 2022 (Indian paper), Actor Vardhan Puri is making headlines these days. He talks about his passion for music, grandfather Amrish Puri & more, and in The Times of India, Jan 16, 2019 - Vardhan Puri: Interesting facts about Amrish Puri’s grandson, and Hindustan Times, May 12, 2021 - Amrish Puri’s grandson Vardhan jokes his parents can be called ‘product of nepotism’: ‘They will be proud to say yes’ etc. etc.. So if things go bad for this, wouldn't it make better sense to preserve the history and redirect it to his grandfather Amrish Puri's page and have a small paragraph there? OK, so he has only starred in one released film with four others pending. But, he has been an assistant director for Ishaqzaade (2012), Shuddh Desi Romance (2013), and Daawat-e-Ishq (2014) See here at Imdb Harshvardhan Puri. I'd be happy with a keep. But if the consensus leans towards not keeping then can we do this and redirect it? Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR by being the assistant director of some movies or acting in a lead role in a small movie. Even if you look at the references it is all press about him being Amrish Puri's grand-son, rather than about him doing the lead role in the movie. Does not warrant a keep, but may be redirected to his illustrious grandfather's page if everyone believes he may become notable in the future. Jupitus Smart 13:29, 25 June 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!} 06:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Karl Twist. Notability is notability, it doesn't matter if it's through the GNG instead of NACTOR, if it's for being someone's grandson (and an actor) rather than just being an actor. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He had worked as an Asst. director for 3 notable films. He had worked as an actor for a notable production house (Pen India Limited) film and also been nominated for same in Filmfare Awards for 'Best Male Debut'. Definitely, article can be improved but not require deletion. --DSN18 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 10 June 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 Wilhelm Reich. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American College of Orgonomy[edit]

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

Lacking in significant coverage from independent sources. The sources currently in the article are either by the subject (#1), don't mention the subject (#2-5, which are about orgone generally), or only mention the organization in passing (#6-7).

Sources not mentioned in the article are better, though not enough to save it from deletion [30] is the only one I've found that discusses it in depth, but a single source isn't sufficient for an article. Other mentions ([31][32]) are clearly trivial.

Also, while this doesn't strictly bear on whether the article gets deleted, it's also worth noting that the article was transparently created by a member of the organization, and a glance at the history will show that it's been repeatedly whitewashed, even if the current iteration isn't. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep It's getting 10K+ hits on google, and is a fairly well known college of nonsense. At worst, this should be merged to Wilhelm Reich, but not deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like to hear more opinions on whether this article should be Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Wilhelm Reich per Headbomb as a short (condensed) paragraph, perhaps a single sentence. An encyclopedia can document that pseudoscience exists and that it even runs colleges, but it really doesn't need to give weakly-cited dross more than minimal coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 1 July 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. I'm going to do a procedural close as the nominator never tagged this article as being the subject of an AFD. A bot later added an AFD tag but as far as I can see, this nomination happened at the moment the article was created but it's impossible to tell with any certainty. They also neglected to inform the article creator of this nomination but luckily a bot took care of that along the way. To the nominator: Please follow the AFD guidelines perfectly, it's a multistep process and all steps are important. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Mackey[edit]

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

Fail in WP:SINGER ... no secondery reliable sources about his work Worldiswide (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevie Mackey (vocal coach) closed as delete in 2017. SmartSE (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References appear to be sufficient to demonstrate minor notability. I'm guessing these have been added since the nom. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:28, 1 July 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 The Gorge Amphitheatre. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Gorge Amphitheatre shooting[edit]

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

This is a routine shooting by US precedents. One week after the shooting, and the article remains a stub. Nothing suggests the content is standalone noteworthy. The event can easily be accommodated in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Washington. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the contents of the article can be easily be accommodated within List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To the page about the Gorge Amphitheatre itself. This shooting is significant enough for that place in particular, just maybe not the rest of the country YatesTucker00090 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because although there is a consensus to Merge, we have two different target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Gorge Amphitheatre. List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 already has an entry, and it doesn't need to be any longer. A merge of this article (which is moderately longer than the list's summary) to the amphitheater article allows editors in the future to more easily expand the shooting's section. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:46, 1 July 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.

Rupeni Rabici[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ JTtheOG (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of Fiji international footballers. One official appearance for the Fiji national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this if anyone can find more coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage already in article. Giant Snowman 12:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly significant figure in Fijian football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:39, 1 July 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 Fiji international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josateki Tamudu[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Fiji international footballers. One appearance for the Fiji national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 12:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Marín (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, with all sources being statistics. A PROD was contested. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and [39], among many more Spanish sources. Clearly signifiant figure in Spanish lower league football with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz: Thank you for finding the sources, they definitely show notability. When doing a WP:BEFORE search, I believe I did not look for Spanish sources, which was a major mistake on my part. I will withdraw this shortly. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:38, 4 July 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!} 04:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Pathik Vidyalaya[edit]

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

Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and because one source with a minor mention does not constitute notability. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 21:26, 1 July 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 Golden Axe#Characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyris Flare[edit]

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

Article's whole reception section relies on quick quips, and the biggest part for her standalone game is more reception for that game than the character (hell one of the reception comments is for her running animation from it?). I though there might be something, but sources turned up nothing other than the occasionally passing note. This was never a character marketed the best and most of the recognizability comes from "girl in chain mail bikini" than actually being a character. Red Sonja she is not. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge most of the sources from reception were pulled up form the game reviews and rankings. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why was this restored? It's SNAAAKE male gaze garbage. Really nothing to worthwhile to merge. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 03:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Golden Axe#Characters. A non-notable character who was evidently made into an article solely due to sex appeal, as stated above. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (very selectively) to Golden Axe - article doesn't show any signs of independent notability. Some of the worst examples of vapid commentary and REFBOMBing (4 sources commenting on liking her breasts??) I've seen in a while too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Golden Axe#Characters. Nothing of substance as noted by the other editors.

Haleth (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Dronebogus (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge per above. The coverage just isn't substantial enough for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:07, 7 July 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.

Rikku[edit]

The result was Withdrawn. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article seems to be falling off on its notability. I tried looking for WP:BEFORE, but I dont see anything that could make the article notable. Thou, I am having hard time to check web archive (Taking all the criticism if the sources happens to fulfill her notability). Right now, the reception is only filled with listicles and game reviews (passing mention). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there seems to be a lot of sources at the web archive, thus resulting me withdrawing afd. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Mafia[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, only local coverage, most of which are restaurant reviews. My attempt at tagging this article for notability to get more attention was promptly reverted. – bradv 02:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. AllyD (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator. It also reads like a advertisement from the owner. --Bduke (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for now...Reviews aren't inherently not enough. I want to see full reviews outside of the local area. It looks like two such reviews are in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is 4000 km away. There's a mention in The Guardian, which obviously isn't sigcov but for me that's a strong indication the restaurant is notable. I'd like to see the two from outside the local area be from different sources, but there's an argument for notability here. Valereee (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with @Bduke that it needs to be rewritten for tone. Valereee (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional articles with the same issue from the same creator: Restaurants Vin Populi, Balthazar (Perth restaurant) and the proprietors of the three restaurants in question Emma Ferguson and Dan Morris have questionable notability and read like adverts. Gjs238 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, if there was a question, I don't suspect this editor of UPE. I think they're just inexperienced, and writing neutral POV articles about restaurants using reviews as sources is really tricky. Valereee (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, along with the other articles mentioned by Gjs238, above. The content could possibly be merged, with the advertising copy deleted, and achieve notability. But onus is on creator to do that. Meticulo (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing significant coverage that would give this notability, and also promotional writing concerns. — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. LibStar (talk) 13:01, 3 July 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!} 03:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Kryukov (rower)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Does not have significant coverage in non-database sources. Searched Soviet newspaper database and found no mention at all in central newspapers from 1952. Kges1901 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Russia. Kges1901 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @LibStar: He does pass NOLY as an Olympic medalist. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; it doesn't look as if the significant coverage we presume to exist does exist in this instance. Sport in the USSR has a brief description, but even then it's just "Vladimir Kryukov, the stroke oarsman, was strong and imperturbable". I can't find anything else except listings with less information yet. J947 † ^edits 21:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source has some details on his life (could be weakly argued as SIGCOV considering the topic here) and mentions that he was four-time Soviet rowing champion, three-time European champion, and was honored with a Master of Sport Medal by the USSR, in addition to being a two-time Olympian and Olympic medalist. I feel like in this case we should be able to presume coverage exist and following a strict interpretation of the rules would not help the encyclopedia. Weak Keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The profile on mai.ru is produced by the institute that he graduated from and also cites the Russian wikipedia entry. It contains substantively little more information. The Honored Master of Sport Medal was commonly awarded to athletes and in Kryukov's case he received it, like the other team members, for the Olympic performance. Kges1901 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't cite the Russian Wikipedia page (am I missing something?). I still hold that we should give some leeway source-wise for an Olympic medalist (WP:NOLY pass) for a foreign country in the offline era, especially since he was a multi-time national champion and multi-time continental champion. According to the WP:NOTABILITY page: [This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The reason that sentence is there is so that we do not delete true all-time greats through a strict following of the guidelines, like we'd be doing here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage that exists for non-Gold medalist Soviet olympians is minimal. Kryukov merits an encyclopedia "entry" in the Soviet 1980 Olympic encyclopedia, which mentions his name, date of birth, and lists him on the roster of the 1952 second place team. This is demonstrably not significant coverage. There is a modern Russian 3-volume Olympic Encyclopedia that doesn't mention him at all, and focuses on non-Russian athletes. The presumption of Olympic notability clearly doesn't hold true for non-gold medalists. We don't even know when he died, so it's unsupported hyperbole to claim that Kryukov is an all time great. Celebrity athletes like Olga Korbut have plenty of articles in Soviet central newspapers, but all that can be found in Izvestiya is a namecheck in the rowing team roster from 1952. That's it, just one namecheck. Kges1901 (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that Izvestiya doesn't have SIGCOV of Kryukov, but that's one newspaper. One. That's like arguing that someone is non-notable because they don't have a feature in The New York Times. There's probably hundreds if not thousands of newspapers that have existed in Russian history; have you checked any of those? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After searching a database that included Pravda, Izvestiya, and numerous other newspapers and the Moscow city newspapers, that one mention was all I coul d find. In fact, it turns out that many Soviet newspapers from 1952 didn't even have sports sections at all. Kges1901 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-independent sources do not contribute to notability, and the source above is both non-independent and non-significant. We do not presume SIGCOV exists for athletes when they do not meet NSPORT, and the subject fails SPORTSCRIT #5. JoelleJay (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So to presume SIGCOV exists for a sportsperson, they need to have SIGCOV? That makes no sense. NSPORT is a guideline, and it specifically states that it is best treated with common sense, while pointing out that occasional exceptions may apply. The reason it says that is so that true all-time greats for foreign countries in the offline era are not deleted by a very strict following of the guidelines. This is one of the times where an "occasional exception" ought to be made. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what NSPORT does. SPORTSCRIT #5 is required for us to use a subject's meeting a sport-specific criterion to presume that additional SIGCOV exists to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rowing at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's eight, his highest Olympic placing, as per WP:ATD-R, absent SIGCOV required for WP:SPORTBASIC 5 (silver medal notwithstanding). ミラP@Miraclepine 01:25, 8 July 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 due to the finding of multiple Spanish language sources during the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Valle[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. There is limited coverage of her but also there is a namesake who is an American abortion campaigner. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existing sources don't provide any significant amount of coverage, and there's almost nothing else online in English language. Retracting !vote after sources found below, but I'm not fluent or familiar enough to evaluate. —siro χ o 08:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Peru. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like the subject has plenty of coverage in Spanish-language sources: see [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't been through all of the source presented above - some I know are better than others, including some good sports-specific outlets. All show sig cov of the subject, so the weaker sources shouldn't be detrimental. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is a stub but seems to have enough references for notability per TheCatalyst31. - Indefensible (talk) 20:47, 1 July 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!} 03:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teashark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG and NSOFT. The only reliable independent coverage I could is a brief CNET article from 2008 ([48]) and a Softpedia post ([49]). I'm unclear on the editorial standards or reliability of the latter; previous RSN discussion suggests it may be a marginally reliable source but either way this limited coverage does not seem significant enough to suggest notability to me. Ineligible for PROD due to prior AfD. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Two sources in the nom fulfill GNG in my mind. CNET especially was extremely reputable for software in that era, and we shouldn't let recent issues discount that. Note that there are also some trivial mentions in reliable sources [50][51] that at least help with verifiability if not notability. —siro χ o 23:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that CNET is reliable here, the reliability I'm unclear on is Softpedia. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I don't think that one reliable source is enough to show notability. Artem.G (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Softpedia's review seems marginally reliable. I've found some other sources ([52][53][54][55][56]) but those aren't nearly good enough together. SWinxy (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the sources listed above...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some references online but does not seem to meet on quality or notability. - Indefensible (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Language barrier here, but [57] (found by SWinxy above) is relatively in-depth, and shows details of the browser (it's a 3rd party/independent manual that actually seems to describe some of the browser functionality and such, afaict) I've updated my !vote above from wk to k —siro χ o 01:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this book, CNET, and Softpedia refs into the article —siro χ o 02:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First source (the book) looks to be the guidelines on how to use the software - I don't believe it qualifies to confirm notability. I don't know much about Softpedia as an eligible source but if it is accepted, then the article itself is in-depth. CNET may qualify too. Onetimememorial (talk) 22:31, 7 July 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!} 20:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Mahmoud (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Both sources in the article are statistics, and any sources online were also statistics. A PROD was contested by an IP who left a source on the talk page claiming that it showed notability, despite the fact that it is about an artist rather than a footballer. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any decent Arabic coverage. He is quoted in Al-Watan and mentioned in passing in Lusail News but this coverage is well short of what we need. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 1 July 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.