Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 25	July 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Vargiu[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Player hardly made any professional appearances, and I could find no significant coverage online for a player who played in the 2000s. Only bit of coverage is here, which is cited on the page, and is only an article talking about how he signed at Dundee at age 17. Not significant enough to warrant an article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to prove WP:NBIO. Kind regards –––ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 2:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Song-il[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search in Korean revealed no results. No sign of notable coverage in the other language articles as well. :3 F4U (they /it) 17:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:47, 29 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!} 23:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Tae-song[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Yonhap News reported that An Tae-song was reported as the fifth best soccer players in North Korea by the KCNA. [1] (Also reported here: [2]; Original report here: [3]) - He was called the second best soccer player in North Korea 2018: [4]. While I don't doubt that it will be difficult to find sources, someone being described as the second best soccer player in the country by the North Korean government suggests that there are likely more sources out there (potentially within North Korea). :3 F4U (they /it) 18:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability (AGFing analysis). Giant Snowman 09:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per above sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:53, 2 August 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McGregor (television presenter)[edit]

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

Looks promotional and lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NACTOR with his roles in 1915 (Logie Winner) and The Coral Island (TV series) and GNG with the likes of [5], Willis, Robyn (21 November 1993), "Scott's train of thought", The Sun Herald, - Stevenson, Andrew (2 October 1999), "End of the line", The Daily Telegraph, - Browne, Rachel (30 January 2000), "The handyman can - Cover story", The Sun Herald, and probably the Biographical cuttings on Scott McGregor, former actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals (which comes from searching for "Scott McGregor" 1915). duffbeerforme (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NACTOR due to many roles in TV series and as a TV presenter.Naomijeans (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple major TV appearances and aforementioned refs. Happily888 (talk) 01:42, 31 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!} 05:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidehi (film)[edit]

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

PROD removed with text "take it to AfD". This article only has one notable The New Indian Express source and one broken Ayngaran International link. No reviews or other production sources found. DareshMohan (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 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!} 23:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the only source that seems not dead is the one mentioning Prithvi Rajan acting in the film, just like this one, I suggest to Redirect the page there.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 21:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose redirect because that actor isn't the only starrer - Karthika Adaikalam has the eponymous role. I'd suggest delete instead for reasons suggested by nom Karnataka (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the kind of article I try to champion, but I'm not finding much about it. There is another movie with a similar name [Vaidehi Kathiruntha] from (1984) that has a lot of coverage, while attempting to search in Tamil I'm mostly getting that movie, since I don't speak the language it's hard to refine search terms. Is there any way to ask someone fluent in Tamil to check for sources, it seems to be a common girl's name as well. I would consider redirecting to the director, but this was their first movie, they've acted in another one after this, and I don't think the director is notable on their own yet. There is a Tamil cinema page, but it lists the top movie of each year. I don't think there is anything notable enough about I can find - like winning an award or being specially recognized in some way. Denaar (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not seeing a consensus. Also, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue? did we copy IMDb or did they copy us? Compare their plot summary to ours.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any good refs sufficient to support this article. Also, the full plot summary was part of the article from its first start in 2019 - 10 years after this movie came out. I suspect we copied IMDb, not vice versa.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:30, 27 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!} 23:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veniana Ranadi[edit]

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

At least four appearances for the Fiji women's national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. List of Fiji women's international footballers does not yet exist, so a redirect is not yet possible. JTtheOG (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:46, 29 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!} 23:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mereoni Tora[edit]

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

At least four appearances for the Fiji women's national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was the most I found. List of Fiji women's international footballers does not yet exist, so a redirect is not yet possible. JTtheOG (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:46, 29 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 Draftify‎. This article can be improved in Draft space. I suggest submitting it when the company becomes notable to AFC for review. Moving it directly back into main space will, I predict, result in a return to AFD and "Draftify" will not be the outcome again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Air (India)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hi, sorry if I did anything wrong using the templates, this is my first AfD. Anyways, this was already deleted last year and it was just remade a couple days ago with only two sources, one of which is their own website. I think it merits speedy deletion per G4. Criticalus (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The airline recently announced the purchase of several new aircraft, and were recently certified to being regular passenger operations. The article needs to be left long enough for more sources to exist SurferSquall (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crossposting from the move request discussion. "Time is needed" Okay, so when they've had the time to launch consumer flights and there are reliable sources discussing the airline, make the article then. It was deleted a year ago, not much has changed, buying 6 planes hardly makes a subject that was deleted a year ago now suddenly worthy of a Wiki article. If you think it needs to be "left long enough for more sources to exist," perhaps take it to draftspace and work it up there, then bring it back when it's ready? But we can't make a stub for something not yet notable which was already deleted in anticipation that someday maybe it will be notable. Criticalus (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any real reason for the stub not to exist? The website is not better off without this article. If somebody comes looking for this topic, they will find something, rather than nothing. You mentioned this is your first AFD. Please familiarize yourself with what is commonly done in Wikipedia in certain situations. SurferSquall (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you said is a good reason to keep the article. This being my first AfD is irrelevant: it does not meet WP:NOTABLE, simple as that. There is not a single reputable source cited in the article. The previous article was already deleted per the discussion I linked above and nothing substantial has changed (signing an LOI to buy six planes does not make a company notable all of a sudden.) Thus it is eligible for speedy deletion under criteria WP:G4 by whichever administrator closes this out. What else is there to discuss? Criticalus (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stub articles and the stub notice exist for an article to be improved, not deleted. Deleting the article does nothing good. I have never seen a single other aviation-related stub article be deleted solely for being short, or even for having been recreated. Deletion does not benefit anyone. SurferSquall (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to read WP:TOOSOON and WP:HARMLESS. If the article was made before achieving GNG and GNG is likely to follow, it's easy, just recreate the article once it passes GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a cursory google search turns up nothing helpful BrigadierG (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's..... why this article exists.... SurferSquall (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG BrigadierG (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SurferSquall: You seem to fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please read WP:GNG. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is required to pass WP:NCORP, which is a higher bar than GNG. The responses of the creator show a fundamental lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. We do not write articles to bring attention to things that nobody else has written about, in fact, articles should only be written on companies that have already been written about extensively elsewhere. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (move to draft space), or if SurferSquall prefers, move to a subpage in his user space (i.e., User:SuferSquall/Spirit Air (India) ). Surfer Squall is one of our best and most prolific editors in the aviation space. This is a well-written article notwithstanding notability issues. I think this article is a little too TOOSOON but we'll probably want it in a few months. The company has been operating an air taxi/charter business since 2008 and is staffed with very knowledgeable professionals so I think they'll make a good go of it.

Thanks again to Surfer Squall for all the content creation over the years.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SurferSquall A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or move to a subpage of user space as per A. B. Gjs238 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on suitability for mainspace, but draftify to Draft:Spirit Air over delete if it's deemed unsuitable. (An RM is headed for removing the disambiguator, currently.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As someone who did try to improve the quality of the original article, I believe that the airline is currently not notable, if they indeed launch some scheduled ops they will get covered in atleast a few reliable sources so draftification may be a possibility. But, we currently have only that 1 source on the article about the Islander's being ordered. Speaking of the original article most sources had some sort of an interview or comment by someone from the company itself and hence were not independent. However, while we are at it I'd like to point out that the last AFD was "poorly" done (I come in peace no offence is intended), the argument went the airline is fake it doesn't exist. Surely it was not notable but it was not a hoax. A sysop could access the sources from the original article and see if there is anything worth salvaging. Bingobro (Chat) 08:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources on the Islander order. If someone's wondering "oh hey what's spirit air in India" then this stub answers that question. Deletion is pointless, especially when this is quite likely to be recreated later. What purpose does deletion serve? You all make no sense. SurferSquall (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnee Buttered Beef Steaks[edit]

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

No indication this product meets GNG with SIGCOV. Ref 1 is a county directory, and although I haven't been able to find a copy of it, according to St. Louis City Directories, they were basically like the yellow pages, so they're hardly RS indicating notability. Ref 2 is a book of random high school memories from people who grew up in St. Louis - again, hardly SIGCOV of this product. Ref 3 was written by Sam Brown, who sold the things, so not independent. Ref 4 is an obit of Mr. Brown and does not focus on the product.

I was not able to find anything further on a search, and I don't see any likely merge target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and Missouri. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This topic sounds like it needs newspaper, but even then I'm left wanting. I found a brief mention in a 1994 column.^[1] There is also some coverage of the company's 1961 bankruptcy.^[2]^[3] But the vast majority of hits in the Post-Dispatch are weekly grocery ads. Delete. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Whatever happened to the Bonnee Butter Beefs..." St. Louis Post-Dispatch. October 9, 1994. p. Magazine 25. Retrieved July 26, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Bankruptcy Petition Filed Against Old Bonnee Co". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. July 9, 1961. p. 10A. Retrieved July 26, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "$559,644 Debts, Assets Of $1026 Listed For Firm". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. September 6, 1961. p. 3A. Retrieved July 26, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Delete It is possible that the company itself could meet GNG (I didn't check on that), but the individual product does not. The article seems to have been created by a fan of the meat who is also the author of the blog post listed here. The article is promotional ("...could be cooked to perfection...") and possibly copied from advertising. Lamona (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are insufficient sources to support a proper article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:55, 2 August 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. then redirect to Sidemen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Minter (Miniminter)[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Lacks sufficient and suitable references, and is plastered with inline links which the uncharitable might consider spam. Fails WP:BIO, fails the tone expected of an article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sidemen (YouTube group). Non-notable, Wikipedia isn't the place for promotional pieces and advertisements. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, I was watching the page Draft:Simon Edward Minter (Miniminter) in case it was moved to mainspace again and this article seems to be the same. Not enough reliable sources for a WP:BLP. Sahaib (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G4 - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniminter. This is an attempt to game the name of a previously deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles are not substantially identical so this is not eligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the originator thinks that the subject is now biographically notable, as they were not in 2021, or that the 2021 article that was deleted needed expansion, they should submit it as Draft:Miniminter to be reviewed, rather than trying to evade the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appears to be another case of an Internet personality whose article has been deleted, and whose ultras, that is, fanatical fans, are attempting to get an article in by gaming the name, thus resulting in more variations on the name being locked, rather than asking for help in finding reliable sources. These fans, like those of other Internet personalities, are the enemies of getting an article for their person, because they will just result in more forms of the name being protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Sidemen (YouTube group) then Protect: Non-notable YouTuber with many fans who apparently want him to have a page. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, am I missing something? Subject appears to meet WP:SINGER#C2. Do we need to delete history on this for some reason? —siro χ o 00:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a lot of the unverifiable stuff from the article. —siro χ o 00:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That part has always been pretty vague to me. Does "national" only include the actual national chart (e.g., UK Singles Chart) or do the sub-genre charts count (e.g., UK Independent Singles Chart). If only the the former counts, then he does not meet it, since the only charting single, "The Gift", was credited to the Sidemen. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thank you. Deceptive crediting in the article. The NZ chart would count for sure, but I think you're correct, it's all credited to Sidemen. Redirect. —siro χ o 05:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Do not redirect. Simon Minter already exists as a redirect to Sidemen and it's unlikely that this would be a valid redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:01, 31 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)‎ Aintabli (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serhat Gülpınar[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT. A search mostly returns biographical entries on some news sites, which often include a lot of people who are not notable according to Wikipedia standards. Some of these bio entries I found appear to be straight copy-paste of the article on the Turkish Wikipedia, which also doesn't have good sources to demonstrate his notability. This "article" also appears to have included a total of one sentence for more than a decade. I don't usually nominate sportspeople for deletion, so feel free to correct me if there's something that satisfies one of the criteria. Aintabli (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per below. Aintabli (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gülpınar made close to 250 appearances in the Süper Lig, the Turkish top level which makes it highly for them to be ~~non-notable~~ notable. Anyone familiar with Turkish newspaper archives should have no trouble finding WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean highly likely for them to be notable? Giant Snowman 18:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Aintabli:, Per Robby.is.on. Please rescind the deletion nomination. I found [6] ("Serhat Gülpınar, who took charge of the team for 10 matches at the beginning of the season in Altaş Denizlispor, surpassed Fatih Tekke, who had an average of 0.8 points after 6 matches, with an average of 1.1 points"), [7] ("A player who can use both feet, hits the ball well and runs a lot. These features make him a wild card that can be used in every part of the field. The fact that there are even matches where he plays as a striker is the clearest proof of this feature") [8], ("Serhat, who has been wearing the Denizlispor jersey for six years and has entered the team's counters with his performance in the midfield"), [9] ("WHO IS SERHAT GÜLPINAR... Serhat Gülpınar has managed 41 official matches so far, with 18 wins, 4 draws and 19 losses"), among many many more Turkish sources. Clealyr significant figure in Turkish football with ongoing manager career, having made around 250 appearances in the Süper Lig and managed many pro Turkish teams/games. Definitely has offline sources, since barely any of the newspapers, especially the Denizli ones, a city where he made over 150 appearances for Denizlispor, have lots of football coverage dating back to the 2000s. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to look for sources before reaching a conclusion, but Denizli Haber (the newspaper with the widest circulation in Denizli) certainly has articles from his playing days online like this from 2007. I don't think appealing to the existence of offline sources is really necessary here. Jogurney (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they had zero articles from his playing days online, I'm saying that there are less of them available online, especially from 2003-2005 etc... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's true. However, I'm concerned that a search of Gülpınar futbolcu on the newspaper's website yields only 7 hits (none of which are directly about him), so even his managerial career isn't getting much attention in Denizli (unless the newspaper keeps most of its sports articles offline even today). Jogurney (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above which show notability. Really, really bad nomination. Giant Snowman 18:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might have been misguided. Years of lack of content (with 1 sentence) plus a quick search that did not return much prompted me to nominate it for deletion. It's not like I'm nominating an absolutely notable and fleshed out article. And I think with all the comments above, this AfD has been beneficial for the article even though the original point of an AfD is deleting articles. Aintabli (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli:, Would you be able to withdraw the deletion nomination? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli:, Since you withdrew the nomination, can you please close the discussion? (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions if you need help). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:50, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War Galoh[edit]

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

This Somalia location article lacks WP:SIGCOV. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I added a reference for this Somalia populated place. JoeNMLC (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A location does not require significant coverage in order to be notable. WP:NGEO says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Millows (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- basically what Millows said. But even so there are very few sources for this place. It clearly exists, though. Central and Adams (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NGEO. The name and coords line up in this book from 1987 and Google image clearly shows it's occupied. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Gazetteer_of_Somalia/CKQ7AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=War+Galoh&pg=PA489&printsec=frontcover Graywalls (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Graywalls. Central and Adams (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Yesterday I found a website (War Galoh, Geographic.org, Geographical Names ) and added to article. So above, Withdrawn. JoeNMLC (talk) 10:52, 27 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 People's Party for Freedom and Democracy leadership election[edit]

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

Drafity - There is only one candidate. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Democrats 66 leadership election (2nd nomination), this does not look like a relevant event Dajasj (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Netherlands. Dajasj (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sal2100 (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify is fine as long as is it is clear to everyone that without two major candidates these articles should eventually be removed. gidonb (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the article would be worth also with one, unopposed candidates. It is a very insightful article and I hope similar articles will be created for the other upcoming Dutch leadership elections. --Checco (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, per nom. — Ætoms ^[talk] 11:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2019 Australian Labor Party leadership election where Albo was the only candidate is in good shape and hasn't had any problems being kept. This article is useful and sets a good precedent for future Dutch leadership election articles. Plus this is the first leadership election article since Rutte was elected in the 2000s so I think it's useful to keep as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than fifteen (serious) parties, most of which have some sort of (sel)ection. Having seperate articles for each of them will be too much. We have leadership election pages for the most relevant ones, such as CDA in 2020/2021. Dajasj (talk) 18:16, 28 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!} 18:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanantha[edit]

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

PROD'd in 2015 for failing GNG, de-PROD'd because "it's a given name, and Wikipedia has a category for given names, so it seems notable by definition..."

Given names don't get a GNG carveout, so AfD it is. I was not able to locate any significant coverage of this name on a search. Normally I would simply turn this kind of page into a disambig to famous people who have the name, but no articles exist with this string in the title, so that's not plausible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Tamil Nadu. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable name, interesting how there are no BIOs with this name to covert to a disambiguation page anyway Karnataka (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't need it. Non-notable in English language searches (note: it's a Tamil language name and Google has difficulty with transliterating search words involving non-Latin scripts)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:42, 26 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!} 18:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etian[edit]

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

Basically since creation, aside from a reference to Baidu, which is unreliable. Was requested to be undeleted by its original creator in 2015 after a 2011 PROD (see User_talk:Just_Chilling/Archive_9#Etian). User provided no sources, made unsubstantiated accusations that the article was deleted because of "bias", and has never edited a single other page aside from this one.

I was not able to locate any reliable SIGCOV that suggests this is a notable name. Normally I would simply turn this kind of page into a disambig to famous people who have the name, but no articles exist with this string in the title, so that's not plausible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiktionary we aren't. There is no sourcing other than people having this name. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The title seems to be an unusual spelling – the pinyin transliteration of 倚天 is Yitian, not Etian. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete factfiles on non-notable names are unneeded for an encyclopedia — Karnataka ^talk 17:56, 2 August 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 Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Road Cycling Course[edit]

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

Temporary cycling course already covered in Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race. Appears to have been a route on public roads, see [10], so not an actual 'venue'. Willbb234 18:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 18:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics as an ATD. —siro χ o 22:30, 26 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 Draftify‎. I didn't mean to relist this discussion but to close it as Draftify as an ATD. Sorry for the goof. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atharva (2023 film)[edit]

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

Atharva (2023 film)

This seems to be an unreleased film. It seems to be an unreleased film because one of the sources announced that the film would be released in June (meaning 2023). However, a Google search does not find any reviews, and does find references to the film being upcoming and pending release. The references are the usual announcements naming the director and the cast.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	timesofindia.indiatimes.com/	A puff piece about the release of a trailer	No	Yes	Sometimes	No
2	thehansindia.com/	Another piece about the teaser - Mostly same as 1	No	Yes	?	No
3	sakshipost.com/	Says that film will be released in June	No	Yes	?	No
4	news18.com	Another announcement that the film will be released	No	Yes	Yes	No
5	timesofindia.indiatimes.com/	Announcement that poster has been released	No	Yes	Sometimes	No

None of the references indicate that the film has been released. This article was moved to draft space once with the notation to wait for release, and has been moved back to article space, and does not seem to have been released. The plot is unreferenced and therefore unverified. (At least, the copyvio detector didn't find it.) Since the plot is unverified, there isn't enough to be worth draftifying. When it is released, a new article can be written. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. DareshMohan (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Well, one editor argues for Draftifying while another is arguing against it. Any more opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because contents are really just a theorised plot summary and a cast list with lots of random grammatical mistakes - I don't see the point of drafting because everything will need to be redone at some point anyways. Karnataka (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The skeleton of the article will be useful upon release. I also don't think the sources are unusable, just insufficient to support an article at this time. When it is released and reviewed it should easily generate enough coverage to warrant an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Even if it has to be rewritten, the draft at least eliminates some work from future editors by preserving the sources that are present for a little background as opposed to an entirely blank slate. If it is not notable to get future edits, then it will result in a G13 delete anyway. -2pou (talk) 17:37, 26 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!} 18:38, 26 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!} 01:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Greece[edit]

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

non-notable marketing firm ~T P W 18:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 18:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 19 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!} 18:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG Charsaddian (talk) 21:05, 26 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 11:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panchkot Raj[edit]

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

This article do not satisfies WP:GNG as it is revolving around one source only and that too donot cover it indepth. It is an unnecessary standalone article as it can exist as part of Damodar Sekhar.~ Admantine123 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jharkhand and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 19 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!} 18:27, 26 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!} 17:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Aungst[edit]

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

Fails notability: does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL as while there is major coverage in one secondary source, there is only coverage in one. See rationales presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Hibbard - routine coverage by a single local media entity wasn't enough there and it seems to not be enough here. Further, the article reads like a puff piece and has since its creation. PriusGod (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PriusGod (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. The precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Hibbard is very relevant. I would also say that once all the promotional material is removed, there's not much left in the article anyway. Only a weak delete as there appears to be plenty of coverage, albeit in local sources and almost all is routine coverage. I would need more convincing that this meets WP:GNG. Willbb234 18:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing outside of the St Petersburg Times, and one local source reporting on a local city mayor does not arise to GNG. I note that this fellow is back as an appointed, interim mayor of that same city (Clearwater), but again I'm not finding anything except routine news. The article is promotional and leaves off criticisms of him, also from the same newspaper. That said, his name appears almost daily in the local news (making it very hard to sift through for non-routine info). If another source of information about him is found this might be salvable, but the article would have to be re-written to be faithful to all sides of the story. Lamona (talk) 18:24, 30 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!} 17:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian-Sasanian war (363–371)[edit]

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

There seems to be a ongoing trend of creating poorly sourced war/battle articles by brand new users:

Can't find a single WP:RS (let alone a mere book) that mentions this supposed "Armenian-Sasanian war of 363–371".
None of the citations have pages cited.
First source is from 1903 and is about geography (?)
Second source is good, though no page. It's only used to cite "In 363 Armenia".
Third source is published by Lulu.com, a self-published source.

In other words, article seems to be WP:OR. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Even if a better article could be written it would need to be completely recreated with different sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:47, 1 August 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 14:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worldef[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No sourcing found, the Forum appears non-notable as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 20:39, 26 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 14:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Net Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable corporation, largely sourced to funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and India. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt due to repeated re-creation. Fails GNG. This will be the third time this article has been created. Graywalls (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article text and given references concerning announcements of company acquisitions fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Aside from these, there is a 2020 India Education Diary piece about the firm, but it is a business buzzword broth about aspirations, which does not in my opinion demonstrate attained notability. I see no reason to overturn the previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 14:18, 1 August 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!} 05:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Trial (Upstairs, Downstairs)[edit]

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

Not notable for its own episode article.Karnataka (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Karnataka (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The pilot for one of the UK's most beloved and renowned series isn't going to be deleted; certainly needs more sources, but this is actually how an episode article should be rather than a 'type-what-I-see' article. And 'oh BTW delete all the articles for the rest of the show' does not fly as a proper nomination template at all; you'll need to build that nom as suggested on the AfD front page, along with proper notifications. FAIAP, I consider this nomination only applicable to the pilot. Nate • (chatter) 23:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed that, will nominate another article and add everything into there, correctly informing users involved.

You have not explained how this subject is notable, rather shown your sentiment towards the overall subject. Wikipedia is not a database of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes and the only sources provided is IMDb (user generated) and another database of Upstairs Downstairs episodes. How is this notable for an episode article? Karnataka (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said, this is the pilot episode of one of ITV's biggest drama series and rather than just outlining the plot and associated information to do with the plot, the article includes other relevant background information. This further enhances its notability. Rillington (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And how is this unsourced background information notable? Karnataka (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is clearly a notable TV series for Western audiences so it shouldn't be a problem to find sources to establish that it's pilot episode was also notable. But I don't see those sources in the article or in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see potential SIGCOV from this book: [11]. Like Liz said, this episode has a good chance of being notable. I'll try to look for more tomorrow. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this in a US newspaper [12] not extensive, but a good sized column about the first episode. This review from the New York Times about the episode on video tape in 1985 [13]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per points above, and sources identified by Ca and Oaktree b. BD2412 T 01:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the sources above aren't the best reviews, but they do seem to qualify as significant. As the pilot episode, this may have enough coverage to remain even if other episodes are removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:25, 27 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.

Coutts Bank[edit]

The result was The article was draftified (see Draft:Coutts–Nigel Farage controversy) by the original creator and the redirect at this title has been restored, so there's nothing more to do here. (non-admin closure)‎ Iffy★Chat -- 19:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an inappropriate split of a small amount of content that is better covered in the main article so the original redirect should be restored. If someone wants to split some of the revisions to a draft to improve later I think that should be OK though" 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95E2:A362:5B6B:9B86 (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have completed this AfD for the IP above. This article (a split from Coutts and NatWest Group) was created as a result of a different IP editing the pre-existing redirect at Coutts Bank. If this AfD keeps the content as a separate page, the RM running concurrently (at Talk:Coutts Bank will decide where to move this page to and the current title should be restored as a redirect to Coutts. Iffy★Chat -- 15:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect to Coutts. It is too soon to know if this event will have any lasting significance beyond the event itself, and it has not received the depth of coverage required by WP:NEVENT. There are plenty of news stories reporting on various aspects of this story, but nothing I can find which indicates widespread impact or lasting significance. I also think this is an inappropriate WP:POVFORK of material that could easily be covered at Coutts. WJ94 (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coutts it is the same topic, Coutts is about the bank, and is the WP:COMMONNAME CT55555(talk) 16:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect and move article to Coutts-Nigel Farage controversy 90.255.19.247 (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95E2:A362:5B6B:9B86 @2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD if you withdraw the AFD, I wouldn't mind the article being moved to draftspace, and the redirect being restored. 90.255.19.247 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect to Coutts per WJ94 and CT55555 above. The article is a paragraph of text copied from Coutts, as noted by creator in their attribution. Copy the same paragraph to a new draft, and put it through WP:AFC like any other non−confirmed editor. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Finance, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect to Coutts. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:30, 26 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 no consensus‎. A consensus isn't going to form here, and I would encourage editors to continue discussing a potential merger on the Talk. Star Mississippi 02:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for AI Safety[edit]

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

No evidence of notability beyond a single announcement that AI has inherent existential risks, which hardly constitutes insight. Nevertheless, the only evidence here is of a one man band and the organisation fails WP:NORG as well as WP:GNG - and has to be considered independently of its director, whose work does not confer notability on the center they direct. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, United States of America, and California. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed this subject does not meet WP:NORG on its own. I suggest a partial merge into Statement on AI risk of extinction (and if that merge notice discussion eventually completes, redirect as appropriate). I don't think a redirect to Dan Hendrycks is as good of an idea, but it may suffice. —siro χ o 09:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've integrated some additional sources into the article now. You raise an important point about how notability is not inherited, but I think it's fair to say that the organization has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I'll quote some examples, including ones that aren't related to the statement on AI risk of extinction (in addition to the many articles that are about the statement). Enervation (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe summarizes a few organizational activities:

Hendrycks and his collaborators have had some success developing an artificial conscience that could steer AIs toward moral behaviors. And in one paper, he explores the possibility of a “moral parliament” that would inject instantaneous ethics into the quick, weighty decisions that AIs will be making all the time. […] How, exactly, such a system would be implemented is unclear. And even if it were, it’s easy to imagine how it could err.

So in the meantime, the Center for AI Safety is pursuing more modest approaches. It’s providing high-octane computer resources to AI safety researchers. It has published an online course on the subject. And a group of philosophy professors is finishing up a months-long fellowship at the center.

CAIS hopes to run a seminar for lawyers and economists at the end of August — anything to get more people thinking about the risks of AI.

Fox News Tech covers the organization's paper "An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks" (and in a separate article, covers the paper "Natural Selection Favors AIs Over Humans"):

Tech experts, Silicon Valley billionaires and everyday Americans have voiced their concerns that artificial intelligence could spiral out of control and lead to the downfall of humanity. Now, researchers at the Center for AI Safety have detailed exactly what "catastrophic" risks AI poses to the world.

"The world as we know it is not normal," researchers with the Center for AI Safety (CAIS) wrote in a recent paper titled "An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks." […]

CAIS is a tech nonprofit that works to reduce "societal-scale risks associated with AI by conducting safety research, building the field of AI safety researchers, and advocating for safety standards," while also acknowledging artificial intelligence has the power to benefit the world. […]

The CAIS leaders behind the study, including the nonprofit’s director Dan Hendrycks, broke down four categories encapsulating the main sources of catastrophic AI risks, which include: malicious use, the AI race itself, organizational risks and rogue AIs.

"Artificial intelligence warning over human extinction – all you need to know". The Independent. 2023-05-31. Retrieved 2023-06-03.

The Centre for AI Safety says it reduces risks from AI through research, field-building, and advocacy.

The AI research includes: identifying and removing dangerous behaviours; studying deceptive and unethical behaviour in it; training AI to behave morally; and improving its security and reliability.

The centre says it also grows the AI safety research field through funding, research infrastructure, and educational resources.

And it raises public awareness of AI risks and safety, provides technical expertise to inform policymaking and advises industry leaders on structures and practices to prioritise AI safety.

Castleman, Terry (2023-05-31). "Prominent AI leaders warn of 'risk of extinction' from new technology". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2023-06-03.

The Center for AI Safety divides the risks of AI into eight categories. Among the dangers it foresees are AI-designed chemical weapons, personalized disinformation campaigns, humans becoming completely dependent on machines and synthetic minds evolving past the point where humans can control them. […]

Tech writer Alex Kantrowitz noted on Twitter that the Center for AI Safety’s funding was opaque, speculating that the media campaign around the danger of AI might be linked to calls from AI executives for more regulation. In the past, social media companies such as Facebook used a similar playbook: ask for regulation, then get a seat at the table when the laws are written.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider option of a Merge. If you have sources to share, please just provide a link to an article, do not reproduce the article within this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the existing text was based on unsuitable sources, and the mission is to reduce societal-scale risks from AI line was copyvio. XOR'easter (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "arXiv preprints are not reliable sources" – this is true, but some of the preprints removed were published in peer-reviewed machine learning conferences. I can replace the arXiv links with NeurIPS links later. Enervation (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they're peer-reviewed, they're primary sources. Wikipedia articles aren't CVs for individual researchers or coatracks for groups to hang all their publications. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to distinguish primary and secondary sources, but I'm not sure that the page you linked, Wikipedia:No original research, states that peer-reviewed research as primary sources shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia. If an academic meets WP:ACADEMIC, should the Wikipedia page only include content that news media and textbooks have picked up on and omit any other research? In any case, some of the research was covered in secondary sources, and I've added this back in. Enervation (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would have no elevating effect on notability anyhow Graywalls (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Statement on AI risk of extinction. There just isn't enough reliable, independent, secondary, in-depth coverage to meet the notability standard for organizations. An opinion column, a blurb that basically just carries over their self-description, a note that accurate information is not available... These aren't what we can use to build an article with. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Boston Globe article is essentially a full-length organization profile – it's not a piece that reflects the author's opinion, despite being placed in the opinion section. This piece discusses a variety of topics in a fair amount of depth, including: an explanation of the papers "An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks" and "Natural Selection Favors AIs Over Humans"; activities such as the compute cluster, online course, and fellowship for philosophy professors; and its statement on AI risk of extinction. Besides the Boston Globe piece, there are also many other articles that discuss the Center for AI Safety. I don't think Statement on AI risk of extinction would make the most sense as a redirect target, as much of the content on the Center for AI Safety page would not be in scope there. Enervation (talk) 21:50, 18 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!} 13:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Improved substantially since nomination, and my personal preference is that these organizations are particularly important to have on Wikipedia. There are at least three major mainstream news stories with the organization's name in the headline. Sandizer (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dan Hendrycks the article at this point doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP and all the sources are clustered around one sentence suggesting difficulty in getting in-depth coverage on the organization itself. This article, as well as the director's article are both short, so redirect is appropriate Graywalls (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my read of WP:NCORP (and the sources in question), it seems to favor keeping the article: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Enervation (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And significant coverage is coverage universally derived from a single activation and pronouncement? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: Not sure if I understand your question. Graywalls (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the RS sources are "Artificial intelligence warning over human extinction". That's one round of announcements/press release/pitching media on a single topic. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

announcements and PRs don't count towards notability at all, nor do interviews with the subject. A significant amount of coverage in a single piece on the company is expected. Graywalls (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"announcements don't count towards notability at all, nor do interviews with the subject" I believe you're thinking of primary sources here – news coverage in reliable sources that substantively discusses the organization would definitely count. Enervation (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enervation: A lot the contents is about Dan and what he's done and what's specifically devoted to the specific company isn't all that thorough, so it makes sense to just talk about it in Dan's page as an alternative to deleting this article. Graywalls (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Statement on AI risk of extinction. The sources really only seem to cover the organization in the context of the statement. Steven Walling • talk 06:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much overlap between the two articles as is, and they're quite different topics conceptually. For example, I'm not sure that it makes sense to cover the organization activities on the page Statement on AI risk of extinction, and the wide array of responses to the statement would not be the focus of the article on the organization.
(Not directed at you in particular) There appears to be some disagreement here about what counts as significant coverage, so it's worth noting the array of information covered in reliable sources:
- The paper "An Overview of Catastrophic Risks", including a substantial summary and synthesis
- The statement on AI risk of extinction and responses
- Various other papers, such as "Natural Selection Favors AIs Over Humans" and "X-Risk Analysis for AI Research" (note that there is a full-length article dedicated to this)
- The organization's compute cluster for AI safety researchers
- The organization's online course
- The fellowship for philosophy professors and planned seminar for lawyers and economists
There are a number of reliable sources that have substantive coverage of the organization itself, even if we exclude discussion of the statement on AI risk. This coverage is much more in-depth than "brief mentions and routine announcements", and is more than enough to "make it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Enervation (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is more than one Merge/Redirect target suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- I find Enervation's exhaustive source analysis above convincing, esp the Boston Globe piece. That in conjunction with the others they've added are more than sufficient to meet and exceed the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a new source focused on research from the Center for AI Safety: Researchers Poke Holes in Safety Controls of ChatGPT and Other Chatbots - The New York Times. Enervation (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply it's a long article that is quite detailed, but there's very little coverage on the article subject Center for AI Safety and the value of this article for notability purpose is minimal. Graywalls (talk) 21:22, 1 August 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, no !votes for deletion at time of withdrawal. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Sage[edit]

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

After performing a standard BEFORE, I found very little in the way of sources beyond what is used in the article to indicate the subject is notable. The game is incomplete and has only released a demo, and is a fanmade project. While it's possible it may become notable in the future due to the fact that it seems to be an ongoing project, it doesn't seem like that it will reach completion for quite some time. There just isn't any SIGCOV or in depth reviews to help in this regard. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Complex article seems good, and while International Business Times is considered unreliable, it cites this, significant coverage from a source that is at least considered by WP:VG to be situational. Combining that with Kotaku, I see a case for erring on the side of keeping the article. The completion status of a game has never been related to how notable it was, as Metroid Dread had an article for numerous years prior to the actual game being a thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if you can't find more sources, there's already three present in the article. A game being finished, incomplete, or cancelled, has no bearing on whether or not a game (or any product) is notable. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with that was that the sources had seemingly dried up and had been dried up for a while. There wasn't much beyond the few in the article. There are quite literally only a handful of sources, which is not satisfying SIGCOV for me, especially when it comes to an unofficial game that hasn't received significant updates in close to ten years. It really just doesn't seem generally notable. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:GNG (SIGCOV) requires multiple sources, and 3 is multiple. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - even 2 significant sources could potentially qualify if they are big enough, like 2 books on the subject, but the bar's somewhat higher for games since they tend to get shorter online articles, 3 still passes that bar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the arguments presented, I suppose I'll have to agree on this. Can't really argue against guidelines. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage discussed above and in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 26 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Democrats 66 leadership election[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Draftify - The argument is essentially the same as presented here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Democrats 66 leadership election. It is as of 26 July still unclear whether Visser and Hachchi will be able to participate, and thus whether there will be an election at all. And even if they do, these do not appear to be serious candidates. Two years ago, Visser did participate (I believe there was no barrier to entry back then), and it was also not a leadership election worthy of an article. At most, this can be summarized in the main election. So unless there is more news, it is better to keep this in draft imo. Dajasj (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Netherlands. Dajasj (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, per nom. Shouldn't have been moved back to mainspace so soon after the previous discussion was closed. — Ætoms ^[talk] 16:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, consistently with 2023 People's Party for Freedom and Democracy leadership election. Anyway there will be a selection of the party's new leader, thus an article like this is much welcome. I hope similar articles will be created for the other upcoming Dutch leadership elections. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency, I have nominated the other article as well, as I had already suggested earlier. In the past we have also limited these articles to really noteworthy elections, never uncontested onces (because there isn't really coverage). Dajasj (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. and Ætoms. Sal2100 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is fine as long as is it is clear to everyone that without two major candidates these articles should eventually be removed. gidonb (talk) 02:10, 27 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 Anupamaa. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Anupamaa[edit]

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

Merge in main article Anupamaa like earlier. No need to make a separate page for it. There are several shows like Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah, Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai, Kundali Bhagya, Kumkum Bhagya etc which are running since years even before this show and received much more accolades than this one. If we start making accolades pages for every TV series then wikipedia will be filled with unnecessary articles only.Pri2000 (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is unnecessary, no significant coverage of number of awards received by the show. Therefore it should be merged with the show's article. Thanks. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, Lists, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Does not seem like nom or delete !voter actually prefer deletion, so I think this discussion would have been better on one of the articles talk pages. —siro χ o 17:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - To Anupamaa per nomination. I agree with @Siroxo its a proposal that can be discussed on the talkpage itself rather than AFD. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 17:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: Per nom. Doesn't have sufficient data to have its own article. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. ManaliJain (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The list seems to be right on the edge of acceptability for a standalone article; several FLs are of a similar length, including the awards lists for Community (60 noms) and The Bill (42 noms). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because other shows haven't split out their awards lists doesn't mean this show can't have that (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main article. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I see no reason this can't be in the main article. StereoFolic (talk) 03:47, 1 August 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 13:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Polito[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline; WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. GuardianH (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and also has clear WP:BLP concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Radio, and Massachusetts. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comment: I cut out the stuff about firing for now due to BLP concerns. Also, the links didn't work right so I deleted them.

Google News search turned up multiple hits but I did not have time to evaluate them: [15]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His name appears in local (Massachusetts) newspapers but primarily as announcements of his shows and guests. He does appear to still be at the station (here) but I have not found anything substantial and independent about him. As someone with a radio show you expect his name to be found in listings, but that's all I find. Lamona (talk) 18:41, 30 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. Star Mississippi 02:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Music Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Awards. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take this on. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Music Awards was in 2018. Things might have changed since then. Reviewing the the 2023 article against the 2018 deleted version, it could be argued the article is *not* substantially identical to the deleted version deleted. The text of the 2023 article is different enough to the 2018 version to avoid that part of WP:G4. Looking at further notability issues, this article would appear to fail any number of tests, including but not limited to WP:WEBSITE, WP:CORPDEPTH. I also note that according to the https://www.globalmusicawards.com/ website, musical artists are invited to nominate themselves for this award. WP:G11 may also apply here As always, please do prove me wrong about this. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the page is wearing a speedy tag??? That apart, delete with extreme prejudice - to quote the awards' website: "Entry fee for the first judging category is $60 US. Each additional judging categories you add is an additional $30." A 'pay to play' award is notable? Pull the other one... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strictly speaking, WP:CSD#G4 does not apply, as the old (deleted) version contained primarily a list of recipients, whereas the current version discusses history and the awards process. Nevertheless, all sources that I find are either not independent (e.g., the competition's website) or focus on recipients of the award rather than the award itself (e.g., [16]), both of which fail to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and the prose is also somewhat promotional (though IMO not blatant enough to invoke WP:CSD#G11). ^Complex/_Rational 12:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is what I wrote on the talk page of the article in response to the deletion request there. Thank you for turning this into an WP:Afd to give us a little bit more time to discuss this. It's not something I will strongly contest as I am still pretty new to writing and editing articles here. I think there are two questions to resolve here:

1. For a music award to be notable for Wikipedia are secondary sources solely about the award itself required?

2. If 1 is not a requirement are there sufficient secondary reliable sources about the conferral of the award to justify the article.

If 1 is a requirement then we don't have to go further. I have not found such references about the Global Music Awards. However, in that case, I would like to point out that there is a plethora of music awards on Wikipedia for which that is the case as well: GAMIQ, Global Music Awards Africa, World Music Awards, etc - I just looked for a couple of minutes, I am sure there are more like that.

For 2, WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RS, I believe more research could be done to find appropriate sources. I don't think it makes sense to do that yet unless we get on the same page whether that is a valuable step to take. Also, the Toronto Star had the following reference in the article "... and the album won best of show at the Global Music Awards."

@Alexandermcnabb: Your "pay for play" comment seems prejudiced. It's common practices for most of these smaller awards to charge a small nominal fee for submissions to cover their administrative fees, e.g. also true for Hollywood Independent Music Awards or the USA Songwriting competition, etc.

@Shirt58: As for self nomination, that's how it works for these awards. It's even true for the Grammys. You become a voting member of the Recording Association and self-nominate your own music. So, please, let's not base the AfD discussion on that. Thank you.

I would appreciate your help in figuring out the next steps. Thank you. SonicSmithy (talk)

I am a little bit disappointed by the lack of engagement here. I reached out to the organization and they shared the following information with me:

1. Global Music Awards is strictly merit based so there is no set number of awards granted each round of entries

2. They have three to five participants per award granted

3. Their typical season has around 700 participants, with substantially higher spikes on occasion

My questions from above still seem like a good opportunity for trying to reach consensus. SonicSmithy (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My rationale at the previous AFD remains true. Note that "Each year, Global Music Awards receives hundreds of entries from around the world".[17], Well in 2022[18][19][20][21], there were 852 medals awarded: 36 gold, 419 silver, and 397 bronze. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 16:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydronium Hydroxide: That may not be the most objective assessment as you are taking a statement from 2017 and comparing it with data from 2023. It's also unclear how that argument relates to the objective criteria for article creation. I would also still appreciate if one of you could answer the two questions I raised earlier.
so far, what I am hearing from the discussion here seems to be an assumption that the organization is up to something nefarious and unethical. I am hoping that the discussion of this AfD can remain objective. Since ground truth data is not readily available, I also reached out the organization and asked them to provide it. It will be interesting to see whether they will respond SonicSmithy (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SonicSmithy: As I stated on your talkpage: "Per WP:GNG, an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If this can't be provided, then the awards are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article". Wikipedia has no problem with including properly-sourced articles on organisations and their activities regardless of whether they are nefarious and/or unethical (1,2,3 etc) or not. (Given that the deleted version of the page was created by a blocked sock, would you please review WP:COI and make any declarations if appropriate). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydronium Hydroxide: Thank you for getting back. I am not affiliated with the organization and don't have a conflict of interest - beyond having spent some time writing the article. As I said before, I have not been able to find meaningful secondary coverage of the awards itself. There is some independent secondary coverage of people who have received an award. I would not consider it significant. My concern and the reason that I engaged more here than I ordinarily would was that it seemed some statements in favor of deletion were statements of belief and not based on an objective assessment. There also seems to be a double standard given the other awards articles on Wikipedia I mentioned above. I don't feel knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia etiquette to nominate them for WP:Afd though. Once again, thank you for engaging in the conversation here. SonicSmithy (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GAMIQ: Redirect/Merge to ADISQ. Insufficient significant coverage at the moment given it's been around since 2006, and I wouldn't even consider the minimal 2022 level to be quite enough if that were sustained going forward.

Global Music Awards Africa: Clear keep. Multiple articles from multiple RS in multiple countries covering the awards as a whole. Natural focus of some articles on winners/nominees from particular countries.

World Music Awards: Keep. Current article sourcing isn't particularly great, but it's obvious that there was a level of extended worldwide coverage of the awards and some kind of broadcast coverage. Note that these awards were not based on any kind of direct quality assessment -- only sales; and that they finished 9 years back, so some contemporary sources will no longer be visible/accessible.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we should keep the article - while I agree it is not very famous - it seems as notable as other ones which do have a Wikipedia page so we need to apply equal standards to be fair. NonAlphabetic — Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NonAlphabetic: This is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. That other existing articles may be deficient is not a valid justification for retention of this article, but an argument that those articles need scrutiny, and either improvement to demonstrate that GNG is met, or deletion if it can't be. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St Mark's Church of England School, Southampton[edit]

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

Declined PROD, non-notable secondary school. Despite Necrothesp’s assertion, the notion that secondary schools are inherently notable was abandoned years ago. Repeatedly re-created. Acroterion (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed we do have WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." This article is entirely unreferenced, for goodness' sake. How would this place be presumed notable? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'll find, if you actually look, that it is not unreferenced! It has no secondary references, but it is certainly referenced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be the two references you added AFTER my comment above was posted? So what was I to 'actually look' at? Your intent? The future? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be the reference in the infobox that was already there before it was even prodded! Check the history if you don't believe me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A total misrepresentation of what I wrote (which frankly, and sadly, surprises me not at all). Editors need to read WP:PROD before they use it. It is for uncontroversial deletion only. AfD is the forum for any other deletion. The deletion of a secondary school in a western country is never going to be uncontroversial and should not occur without discussion at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable and well-referenced after Necrothesp added 2 good refs to the article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as it skirts by on the multiple RS requirement for notability guideline of orgs. The only source of sustained converse appears to be the local Daily Echo, though, hence my apprehension towards a full keep. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Southern Daily Echo is the main newspaper for the Southampton area. It's reliable. It doesn't have to be big.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My concern is that the only sustained coverage comes from that source, while the other RS I could gluons exclusively covered a single event. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this webpage should be deleted because other pages for example St George Catholic College Southampton share similar notabilities where as they have not been deleted Parabelleum (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, as do most western secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you guys remove the deletion thing on the page because so many people have said keep and I also say we should keep it. Parabelleum (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parabelleum is now indefinitely blocked for vandalism. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the instructions for participating at AfD. Theyre linked in the box at the top of this page. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References used do not show any notability that passed the WP:GNG or WP:NORG bar. The first school in a single city - Southhampton - that is able to serve from year 4 to year 16 is not notable enough in my opinion. The second reference is just covering about the expansion of the school, and the notability claim on the second reference is similar with the first reference. Secondary schools are assumed to be not notable, so deletion for them is somewhat uncontroversial. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No, secondary schools are certainly not "assumed to be not notable". They are assessed on a case by case basis and most western secondary schools are kept, so should never be prodded as uncontroversial deletion. It's primary schools that are generally assumed to be non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is sourced and proves notability. Bleaney (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't know what to do with it but I'll have to leave this article as is as there is adequate sourcing. HarukaAmaranth (話) 15:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 30 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 List of .hack characters. ✗plicit 13:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kite (.hack)[edit]

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

Like Ovan, despite being sourced and well written. This article is also mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like passing mentions from games reviews. It has zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of .hack characters. Trivial mentions and trivial mentions, there needs to be more grist to justify a standalone page. Right now there isn't evidence that Kite is standalaone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The problem, as often, is that this is a very well researched article that is built on zero sources meeting WP:SIGCOV. Dozens of mentions in passing are not sufficient for a topic to have stand-alone article on Wikipedia, unfortunately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs aren't enough to pass WP:SIGCOV, or support a stand alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:49, 31 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 13:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SunTec Group[edit]

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

Promotional. Sources are either primary sources or press releases or does not substantiate the notability of the subject. Unable to find third party reliable independent sources as well. The article was sent to draft earlier (Draft:SunTec Group) and then recreated. If the article here is deleted, so should the draft as well since this is clearly a continuation from the draft. – robertsky (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. – robertsky (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a bout of weariness stopped me nominating this earlier today, and now it's been nommed, I'm only to glad to support the nomination with the observation 'per nom' but also noting that the article is still promotional despite waves of cleanup and the company clearly fails WP:NCORP no matter how much you clean it up. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably would've been eligible for G11 in its original state.-KH-1 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no good refs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good reliable sources. Promotional and not notable page. BoraVoro (talk) 14:02, 28 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 13:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeesha Rarere[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided and a highest ranking of 75. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched online to find any RS but I failed. With no achievements and no RS, this clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE Charsaddian (talk) 18:21, 26 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 13:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Aspinall[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided and a highest ranking of 97. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched online to find any RS but I failed. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE Charsaddian (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree. Clear failure to satisfy WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:26, 27 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 13:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Wighton[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided and a highest ranking of 98. LibStar (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Gorillaz tell us, 'Nothing more to say'... Straightforwardly fails WP:SPORTSCRIT - "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched online to find RS but I failed. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE Charsaddian (talk) 17:28, 26 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. ✗plicit 13:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Nicosia[edit]

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

This article is clearly self-authored with a complete lack of reliable sources and overall uses advertisment-like wording. It's a for-profit university in the small country of Cyprus with little notability and not many reliable neutral sources to learn about its activity. Also, looking at the edit history its obvious that many exaggerations or complete falsehoods were edited out, but many still remain. I propose the article's deletion. Perhaps it can be rewritten if/when someone presents reliable sources. Gnkgr (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Gnkgr (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Cyprus. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is quite clear here: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online." Just because Cyprus is little don't mean you can pick on it. In fact, you could argue quite compellingly that the centrality and therefore notability of the institution is enhanced by the small size of the state it serves - particularly as it has over 12,000 students and is recognised as the largest university in the country... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that University of Nicosia is the largest in the country is part of the institution's marketing but has been refuted. Gnkgr (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source for that? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a fully-fledged university and we always keep those. Comments like It's a for-profit university in the small country of Cyprus beggar belief. So what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a real university, though the article reads like a corporate brochure and the unreferenced material should be cut, even as that would make it a couple of paragraphs - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is a real school and meets the GNG, although puff needs to be taken out User:Let'srun 20:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully-fledged university meets WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines for Schools. I would do a clean up of less pertinent info, but keep for sure. Lethweimaster (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Svantesson[edit]

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

Footballer with 72 minutes in Allsvenskan. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added. Giant Snowman 16:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Found few sources 1, 2, 3, 4 Charsaddian (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources above are a brief mention in an injury report/interview with a teammate, a Q&A interview with almost zero commentary, a press release from Allsvenskan, and a press release from MUSC (his former club). Nowhere close to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, here are three more independent sources which are either only about Svantesson or significantly covers him: [22] [23] [24] AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a more recent article from 2021 covering his injury and path to recovery, the same article also seems to have been published in other local newspapers: [25] AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article significantly and added the relevant sources I found, including one I couldn't find online but did exist in a local newspaper. Pinging @GiantSnowman: as requested. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what the first source says, but if it's another interview it's unlikely to be independent enough. The middle source has some material, but the way it is structured it seems like it's paraphrasing quotes directly from him rather than contributing independent analysis. The last source is wholly routine transfer news with no SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by AlexandraAVX and Charsaddian. Frank Anchor 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG per above sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:52, 2 August 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 AA Films. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Thadani[edit]

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

Non-notable, no reliable sources. BoraVoro (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Seriously? he’s Literally the 1000 crore movie distributor, I’ve not completed the article yet, its a stub right now, he owns the AA Films you check that article, he’s along side Lyca Productions Karan Johar I think this is Literally the mistake, please consider it again once you search him on the web. I have not cited or added all the information as I’m yet to collect and write just started so anyone else who wants to can contribute ~~~ Autograph (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are Literally 1000s of Independent and reliable sources on him, presenting and distribution related in India he distributes film Pan India, and his recent films have been all time blockbusters and right now Anil Thadani is distributing every fifth film in India nationwide. Any admin should consider removing the tag. I personally feel This person deserves to be on wikipedia as much as Aditya Chopra Siddharth Roy Kapur Autograph (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He most certainly does, but we need extensive, reliable sources that discuss him at length. Articles saying how pretty his family is or how he's divorced don't help. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Meet Anil Thadani, Raveena Tandon's Husband" says the society pages headline, which sums things up nicely. Yes, he's big in film distribution, yes his company has distributed big films. Yes, he moves in Bollywood circles. Does that make him notable? It does not. No SIGCOV in independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay I will cite significant independent sources and he does passes as general notable person, Because he has independent sources i will add the information later today and cite those. After that I will again come here comment to point those out. Autograph (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just like these independent [26] there are atleast thousand if you search.. I’m just not sure exactly from where I should so I just started stub for everyone. Autograph (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a photo and a two sentence photo caption. Not anywhere near extensive coverage. "Thousands" of one or two line sentences in news articles won't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added sources and his contribution in the films distributions please look at it once. I'm just trying to prove his notability. if its still not justified let me know I will just DB-self it bcs its just time wasting for me, if he's not even worth wikipedia. Autograph (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He likely isn't, that's what we're debating, based on what I've seen, it's not noteworthy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Celebrity fluff coverage, look at his family, divorced his wife, nothing we can use for sourcing. Thousands of hits in Gnews, yes, but I'm not showing any we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has not divorced his wife that's false Autograph (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont mind if this article being deleted but anyone who's from India definitely would agree with me that Anil Thadani is one of the biggest film distributors and presenter in India today, and news does cover him as Raveena Tandon's husband because she's big actress in bollywood but he started his distribution company even before getting married to her, and have distributed numerous films even before getting married to her and those were India's biggest hits. if u are only concerned about the sources I dont know about that but as an Indian he's BIG name. Autograph (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please check the new section for his films distributed as owner of AA Films Autograph (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a !redirect if it goes that way, the film company seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think, the all information given at AA Films is same in Anil thadani's article such as presented and distributed films except his birth date. It can be merged or redirect to AA Films. Morekar(talk)

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 07:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre in Bashlybel[edit]

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

Article fails both WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFY. No neutral or reliable sources in the Massacre section for the actual massacre (The NYT source is for detached background info). Only sources actually describing the massacre are "azertag.az" or "Armiya.Az". The UN doc was submitted by "Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations"; it does not actually contain claims made by the UN. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom. Mostly WP:OR and unverifiable content. Archives908 (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, this is interesting. First and foremost, I'd like to get some guidance as to the best policy to follow here, because much as I'd lean towards deleting this clearly skewed account, I also think it appropriate that WP should at least have an article noting the potential existence of a thing. 'Your freedom fighter is my terrorist' and although I completely agree (having spent some time combing through the sources) that the sourcing is 100% totally skewed to an Azerbaijani nationalist narrative, that narrative in of itself has some notability in an overall appreciation of the conflict and the war of words that surrounds it. Perhaps this and other similar conflicts you have nominated for deletion should be included in a section in, say, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article and, given that, I could support deletion of this 100% NPOV article. But to erase something simply because it's one sided seems, well, one-sided. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very biased to a certain point of view, with very few of the sources indicating that this specific attack happened. Maybe it did, but little independent coverage. Jaguarnik (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 31 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 07:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Erzurum (1918)[edit]

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

The Minassian source, on which nearly all of the "Battle" section is cited, says the town was evacuated ahead of time without conflict. This article is built on a false premise; there was no battle of capture. I attempted to WP:VERIFY by looking for other sources, but none spoke of a battle. I attempted to WP:VERIFY by looking for other sources, but none spoke of a battle. The Kazemzadeh source does not even contain the quote that is attributed to it. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Armenia, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above. Lack of WP:RS regarding this "battle". Archives908 (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 31 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 07:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chapakchur (1916)[edit]

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

Article fails both WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFY. I cannot find a single source for this supposed event that isn't written in Turkish with the expectation of Gawrych, who only dedicates two brief sentences to the event, not even mentioning the result. Thus, there's no indication this is noteworthy enough for its own article. As for the other sources, none of them are written by established historians or published by credible publishers. The only Turkish source in English written by , is an Armenian genocide denier: "The Armenian deportation is a series of events where Armenians in Eastern Anatolia were relocated tot he more peaceful and problem-free Ottoman provinces..." (from the Ataturk's planning of the Turkish revolution source, there is no page number). - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Supposedly a large battle where over 30,000 men died but no mention of it outside of Wikipedia, seems fake to me. محرر البوق (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-Delete, seems like Turkish propaganda Nafayun (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. Sure is raining with these type of articles these days. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:03, 31 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!} 07:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Karamaryan[edit]

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

Article fails both WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFY. I cannot find a single source for this supposed event that isn't written in Azerbaijani, and of those sources none of them are written by established historians or published by credible publishers. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 31 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 07:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Salyan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is built on sources that fail WP:RELIABILITY, WP:VERIFY, and WP:DUE.

The Yengin source is just a diary from over a century ago, not reliable per WP:PRIMARY.

Güzel, Oğuz, and Karatay are genocide deniers. Page 483: "This is an important proof, demonstrating that Armenians were not subjected to genocide before and after the deportation."

Güçlü is very apologetic to genocide denial and portrays it as a legitimate view, such as (Page 179) writing genocide deniers like Heath W. Lowry and Justin McCarthy "both dispute that the evidence supports a verdict of genocide" as opposed to "other historians...take a very different view". Also on Page 44: "Yet unlike the denial of the Holocaust that nourishes anti-Semitism, denial of the Armenian genocide is not part of a racist anti-Armenian ideology".

The Altayli website is not a credible or established source, and includes articles denying genocide.

I also found very little information about these writers, and suspect they would not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the above arguments. Once again, could not find anything on google books stating that this battle happened. Sources cited are undoubtedly biased and not reliable. محرر البوق (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:03, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn by DareshMohan. (non-admin closure) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G. Sasikumar[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biographies-related deletion discussions. NYC Guru (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced (reliable) cinematographer. No awards. Notable films include Kaadhal and Sivi. Source analysis:

Passing mention
Passing mention
Passing mention
Passing mention of his editing (name not mentioned)
Passing mention

All sources are about films and not him.

Found a database source. This source is 90% not about him: Tharai Thappattai, or Thaarai Thappattai is a 2016 Tamil melodic art film inscribed, shaped and led by Bala. The film marks Sasikumar and Varalaxmi Sarath Kumar in the prominent roles, while Ilaiyaraaja creates the picture's tune based on Karakattam. This flick also materializes to be Ilaiyaraaja's 1000th movie. The film began creation in 2013 and publicized on 14 January 2016.Ilaiyaraaja won the Countrywide Picture Prize for Best Contextual Score at the 63rd National Picture Rewards. In one of his pictures Sannasi (M. Sasikumar), a character is a gifted folk performer and nadaswaram specialist in a town living with his dad Samipulavan (G. M. Kumar). He also has discontinued talking with his lad because of the same logic. Sooravalli (VaralaxmiSarathkumar) is Sannasi's companion who dears Sannasi very much and articulates her love frequently for which Sannasi doesn't respond. Both Sannasi and Sooravalliare in the identical group of dancers who go to places for performance. A harmlessly dressed Karuppaiah (R. K. Suresh) often interjects the fellow players in the group they go, to know where the next dance programme would occur. One day Sannasi gets a telephone ring from a group of men in a cabin nearby. They pay him a quantity to book his company for a dance programme in a shrine in Andaman Nicobar Islands. The band goes to Andaman by travelers, stays in the in provided by the managers and presents Karagattam in a sanctuary. The men who prearranged the dance liked the women ballerinas and asked Sannasi to show them the girls implicitly asking for sex. Sannasi without saying any word takes the managers to the area where the lady dancers are residing and say to them that he has presented the girls as per their demand. In November 2016, it stated that Vikram Prabhu had settled terms to labor on a picture titled Pakka led by novice Surya. Nikki Galrani contracted on to play the leading lady role in January 2017 and toiled on the flick alongside her obligations in Neruppu Da (2017), which also performed her together with Vikram Prabhu. The scheme became Nikki Galrani's 25thpicture, and the director publicized that she would depict a Rajinikanth fan. Director Surya exposed Pakka would be a complete profitable entertainer which set in contradiction of a rural background, and also confirmed that the squad had signed on performers Sathish, Soori, and Anandaraj for supporting roles.

To save the article, need to add more sources like an interview from The Hindu. Did he win an award for the taut thriller Sivi? If so, please add it.

Source found in WP:BEFORE (went through every one of his film's reviews): [27],[28]. Is it enough (passing mentions)? These sources mention his editing but not his name: [29], [30], [31].

DareshMohan (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet fairly this criterion for Notability of People (Creative professionals): "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". His creative input to various notable films is sourced and deemed notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: Comment But how is a passing mention a "primary subject" of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? DareshMohan (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, the films he worked on need to have been subject of such coverage and it is obviously the case with various films in his filmography, but even those contributions themselves are sourced; your example shows that for one particular film. But take any other you like, Sivi, Kaadhal, for example, as it is currently in the page, they're object of such coverage and his contributions to them is even sourced as notable/important. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination. DareshMohan (talk) 05:01, 27 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 11:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Gupta (born 1970)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL - civil servant, never elected to office. No evidence of notability of 'political activism' and chairing the Uttar Pradesh Council of Agricultural Research is certainly not grounds for notability. Note article was previously drafted to 'segregate COI/UPE' by an experienced page patroller, but returned to mainspace after declined AfC submission with no improvement. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 19 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!} 05:28, 26 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 no consensus‎. The sources found during this debate fail to convince a substantial number of editors. I also find compelling the argument by JoelleJay that just because this territory is tiny, we should not drop SIGCOV. However, while my sympathy lies with the "delete" argument, there are also strong policy-based "keep" !votes. Hence: "no consensus". Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Podziewski[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur footballer who earned two caps with the Northern Mariana Islands national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this. JTtheOG (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, Oceania, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], among many more sources. Clearly significant figure in Northern Mariana Islands football with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as if sources found by Das osmnezz. I am currently away from my home this week, but will improve this article, among others, when I return. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the above, the three best sources are all from the Saipan Tribune and thus count as one. The two from the mvariety.com mention the subject twice each and contain no significant coverage on him. As of now, he fails WP:GNG as it requires multiple significant sources from multiple publications. Alvaldi (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit confused by this one, if the articles in the Saipan Tribune are good, what difference does it make if they all come from the same newspaper? The Northern Mariana Islands are tiny, and there only appears to be three newspapers for the entirety of the islands. Podziewski is 'interviewed' in the Marianas Variety here, and the only other newspaper is the Marianas Business Journal; with Podziewski having nothing to do with business, it is understandable that he does not feature here.

It feels somewhat harsh to discount an entire nation due to their lack of journalism, and I feel that, as far as topics in the Marianas go, Podziewski is comparatively well-covered. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:07, 22 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!} 05:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes GNG after recent expansion.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as the coverage is routine and heavily leans on quotes from the subject. I agree with Alvaldi that the mvariety.com sources barely mention Podziewski and clearly fall short of SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with others that the coverage is paltry. Why should footballers selected from a pool of ~50k people be granted inherent notability when they play for a subnational territory but not when they play for a comparably-sized city? JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Wikipedia put politicians on such a pedestal? WP:NPOLITICIAN states that politicians are presumed to be notable if they have "held international, national, or state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." If we are to delete this article, I fear it would open the door for all Mariana Islands articles to be deleted. Having looked through the list of people from the Northern Mariana Islands, most of them also appear to only garner coverage in either the Saipan Tribune or the Marianas Variety, even some high-ranking politicians (who don't appear to have much more coverage than Podziewski) - but this should surely be expected of such a small nation.

Podziewski is an international representative for the Northern Mariana Islands, and has garnered more coverage than some international sportspeople from larger nations. If a footballer played at semi-professional level in Shropshire, and was covered multiple times in the Shropshire Star, then I would say they are a notable figure in Shropshire. I don't see why the articles all coming from one place is relevant, they are clearly covering different periods of Podziewski's life, and are not just copy/paste content saying the same thing over and over. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL has different criteria than what we use for sportspeople, although there is generally a strong presumption that at least high-level politicians will receive GNG coverage outside their local area/internationally through international political activity.

A Shropshire lad would also fail GNG if he was only covered in one Shropshire paper. It shouldn't matter if the locale is an ocean island or merely islanded in Severn stream, if multiple independent parties haven't given a subject SIGCOV in RS then a standalone is not warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is clear, and it's not reasonable to expect the same standards for a tiny microstate. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 3 August 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 11:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peta Hughes[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:BIO. Could not find any sources, 2 primary sources provided. If she had won a major squash championship that might be a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 19 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!} 05:22, 26 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. Star Mississippi 02:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Wrestling Alliance personnel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The promotion doesn't include a roster page on their website. Most of sources don't support wrestlers beign signed by NWA, just that worked on some events. Most sources are Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or Instagram matchcards. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for context. For pro wrestling personnel, we include only people who are under contract with the promotion. Small and middle size promotions, like NWA, uses a lot of free agents and occasional talent. Most of the sources are just list of matches, but they don't mention wrestlers signing with NWA, just that they worked (in some cases, years ago) with NWA. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep? I don't have strong feelings about this one, but there are plenty of sources on there that aren't social media, though I'm not sure they satisfy WP:SIRS. This seems like a list of other articles that have an association with the National Wrestling Alliance, and it's also probably a good place to redirect wrestlers that don't satisfy notability guidelines on their own. Kalethan (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are some of them, but several of them are just results. For example, N 23 it's results from 2021. N 24 it's just list of matches of the wrestler, doens't mention a contract signed with NWA. Source 11, matches from 2021, no mention about Luke Hawx signing. There are just a few explicity stating the talent signed a contract with NWA, like Kylie Alexa, Miss Kate or EC3.
  - Comment - Kalethan - Basically with any fed that isn't WWE, and even with WWE sometimes, it's really hard to know who is under what kind of contract or when. There's so many AEW wrestlers who are on pay-per-appearance deals and various people who aren't even officially under contract are often on TV weekly. It's even worse with non-American companies.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An official roster is necessary for verification of such lists. Notable professional wrestling promotions have official roster; e.g. WWE, AEW, Impact, NJPW, ROH, Stardom, and the others. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mann Mann - ROH's roster lists a person who is dead (Jay Briscoe) and a person (Jericho) who has never actually competed in Ring of Honor. NJPW lists people who are not signed and only compete on their US shows. Impact lists people who are retired, with other companies or not even with the company period.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like the two options suggested so far are Redirect and Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probably not suitable for a standalone list under WP:NLIST, and the sourcing issues here are severe. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Creation of a DAB doesn't require another likely silent relist. Star Mississippi 02:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fun and Frustration[edit]

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

The point of this article is pointless: Each film starts with a fresh story unrelated with the preceding film's story. However, the theme and the pace remains the same. This is not a film franchise (most have 3+ films). This article does not add anything that is not on F2: Fun and Frustration and F3: Fun and Frustration. The box office performance is not significant like K.G.F (film series). DareshMohan (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 4 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!} 06:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - the article is just a synthesis of material from the F2: Fun and Frustration and F3: Fun and Frustration articles. It would make sense for this page to disambiguate the two. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:25, 19 July 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!} 05:19, 26 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 Scott Coast as a viable ATD. There is no clear consensus to merge, but the history remains should that consensus eventuate. Star Mississippi 02:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weidner Ridge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEONATURAL; all we know about the location is its name and coordinates - to the extent that a search on google scholar for the location provides no results.

The article also includes a brief biography of the person the ridge is named after, but as that isn't directly related to the ridge I don't believe it justifies an article on the ridge. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: GNIS mentions that it is "A linear volcanic outcrop, 2.2 miles long, between Savage Ridge and Testa Ridge on the north slope of Mount Morning, Victoria Land", which is a little better than just "name and coordinates", but could still fall short of GEONATURAL. It appears we actually have lots of articles created in a similar manner (questionably notable Antarctic features named after UW-Madison Professors; see Mount Bockheim, Mount Stearns, and Blankenship Glacier for example). AviationFreak💬 15:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEONATURAL. –dlthewave ☎ 15:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I recall reading this article when I was heavy into Antarctica WikiProject. While there are many (hundreds) of these short articles, they mostly need a bit of information about, surrounding features, altitude, regional orientation, etc. to keep a Stub status. Lacking any on-ground field exploration, maybe any satellite images may help. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At WP Antarctica, I posted a notice here about possibly creating a List of Antarcitica locations article wikitable to contain these short articles being considered for deletion. JoeNMLC (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scott Coast, expanding the existing list item there. I would note that this does strictly meet GEONATURAL, since the article as it stands already provides information beyond statistics and coordinates (namely the name origin) and as noted above could be expanded with another sentence or so. But I don't think that really makes sense as a way to organize our coverage in this case. -- Visviva (talk) 02:20, 20 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!} 05:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scott Coast. Or redirect, there's precious little here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scott Coast per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEONATURAL. In addition, I looked up "Weidner Ridge" in "Antarctica : an encyclopedia," vols. 1 and 2, 2nd ed. by John Stewart and found nothimg more than what is written in its Wikipedia article. Found a alck of additional information in other sources. Paul H. (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Solves to the deletion !votes and because the creator is amenable and willing to do the work. Star Mississippi 02:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ujawal Jha[edit]

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

Not convinced that there is enough independent coverage here to establish notability Sources read like promo pieces/advertorials. Previously draftified [37] KH-1 (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Sun piece seems iffy, feels PRish and is only half a page long; the "person" that wrote it doesn't even capitalize their name. Not sure why Nigerians are concerned about a routine individual in Nepal, but it's what it is... Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep: The signing of social worker bill into law by the Nigerian former president and Ujawal Jha offering a helping service to the country ought to be the reason he has such coverage see
reports have it that he plans to focused on developing initiatives that empower individuals to overcome challenges independently in Nigeria.
— https://thenationonlineng.net/buhari-lauded-for-signing-social-work-bill/
Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No independent sourcing. No specifics on what he's supposed to have done. All I've learnt from reading the article is that you can pay Nigerian sources considered generally reliable (by at least one of our scripts) to publish biographies with not even a pretense of objectivity. It does not help that a Nepali social worker has more coverage in Nigeria than in any other country, Nepal included. All the sources are parroting the same thing too. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems new prince has born in Nigeria. nirmal (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep: It’s a decent enough page. Relevant citations and notable subject. Because it isn’t “mainstream” doesn’t mean the subject lacks credibility. Amaekuma (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not impressed by the souces I looked at. Often no byline, several referred to him as "she" so they couldn't keep his gender straight and the content was mostly vague goals he had and few details on what he has actually accomplished in his short life that might make him notable. It's great that he wants to help people and empower women but many people do and they do not have articles on Wikipedia. Also, the page creator cut and paste this article in main space so there is still an existing draft at Draft:Ujawal Jha. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 26 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!} 05:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, as others have noted above, standing up a Nepalese person's article with Nigerian paid puff placements is not only odd, it's pointless. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- These sources are not Nigerian, It shows he has received significant coverage outside of Nigeria [[38]] [[39]] [[40]][[41]][[42]][[43]] the article needs improvement and not deletions197.150.98.87 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Junk. First one is written by "Freelancer" and the about page says "Due to the number of articles and photographs shared by contributors, Chiang Rai Times cannot verify all the content of the articles or photographs." If there was any doubt, there is none now. The whole thing is just spam. The article creator should be blocked for UPE and all their articles summarily deleted. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Please, KH-1 can the article nominations be withdrawn and move the article to draft, so I can have enough time to work on it and summit it through AFC for approval, I would have summited the earlier one move to draft for approval but I don't know the template to put on it so it will be summited for review, please if possible help to move the article to draft let's me work on it from there.And also assist by putting the template on it so it will be easy for me to summit for review if I am able to find more sources. And I still don't have issues if the article is deleted and for me to be allowed to work on the one currently on draft but will kindly need an assistance for an editor to put the template for me to summit once I'm able to get more sources while working on it through AFC.. Thank you Fmnoble (talk) 16:24, 30 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 01:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Praxis: Journal of Gender and Cultural Critiques[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of available sources. I created this article in 2016, and tried to PROD it shortly afterwards when it became apparent there were no more sources available to expand it. Someone reverted the PROD, but seven years later there's still no more sources available. Furthermore, the official website has shut down and it appears the journal is defunct, but I can't even find any sources to support that it shut down. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to have disappeared without leaving mucg trace showing notability. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG/NJOURNALS. It does not appear to be listed in any selective databases and I can't find coverage in reliable sources. WJ94 (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's gone, there aren't any sources discussing it and I can't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article creator/AfD nominator and others who search refs. Thanks for your work.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:03, 27 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 01:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John David Larson[edit]

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

Neither the rank of brigadier general nor the awards received convey automatic notability. From tribute from his company and obit, I find no other evidence that he was notable businessman. Star Mississippi 03:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Wisconsin. Star Mississippi 03:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no substantial coverage to base WP:ANYBIO. This subject does not approach any special guidelines or policies on account of his rank. We will all have obits online as long as we don't die too far yesterday. JFHJr (㊟) 05:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I expanded the article with information about his civilian work, and I noticed some volunteer activity in his obituary, but probably not enough to pass notability. In general, though, military personnel are often notable for their accomplishments in civilian life as well. There's something hidden behind a paywall at https://madison.com/news/local/obituaries/larson-john-david/article_a431f806-f336-5d73-b721-4f845637b6fa.html Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn’t meet notability or SIGCOV guidelines. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:16, 29 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!} 03:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorotheus of Athens[edit]

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

Unsourced biography. Seems to be a run-of-the-mill priest. Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Greece. Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: subject appears real based on this. Archbishops in the Eastern Orthodox Church are not "run of the mill" priests but rather the highest ecclesiastical officials in territories that cover often hundreds of thousands faithful; see WP:NBISHOP for a discussion of how this pairs with biographical notability standards. Note that the Greek language article is indeed sourced. This is not a case of BLP, as the subject is very dead. I see no reason to delete outside "the article is currently unsourced", which looks to be easily fixed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Natg 19: I have added two sources to the article. Neither are stellar, but serve to adequately establish that Dorotheus was a real figure and served in the capacity described by the article (as well as providing an account of his death). I would encourage you to consider withdrawing this AfD on the grounds that a modern Archbishop of Athens and All Greece–who served as the head of the Church of Greece–almost certainly satisfies the standards laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to overload this, but please also see the essay section WP:CLERGY. Additionally, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuhanon Mar Meletius demonstrates a recent case where a less significant bishop was AfD'd and kept on general notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pbritti. Mccapra (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Pbritti. Not "a run-of-the-mill priest" -- according to Wikipedia, he has 8,515 of them that he supervises.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To caveat, he presumably oversaw a similar number of priests in 1957. Not sure about vocational trends in Greek Orthodoxy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, you're right!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references have been added to the article and archbishops of a major denomination are usually included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and per arguments above. BD2412 T 00:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesans bishops and archbishops of major denominations are always considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 1 August 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 nothing wrong with the nomination that this is "Unsourced article about a band,". It is. It would be appreciated if sources brought up in this discussion, such as they are, could be added to the article in question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altar (Dutch band)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a band, questionable notability. Was kept at AfD back in 2006, when standards were a lot different. Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The rationale behind the 2006 keep was that Altar satisfies criterion 5 of WP:BAND. Can you show that it doesn't? (no answer, vote changed to Keep) 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on above excellent point - more than two recordings issued on a blue-linked Dutch indy label - "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)" I note from the Displeased Records article that many of the artists on the label's roster are bluelinks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, procedural keep. Nominator does not address the overwhelming consensus to keep last time on its merrits. In addition, this nomination is in blatant disragard of the WP:NEXIST rule. Moderator intervention requested against this attempt to relitigate without pointing at specific grounds as there are already way too many AfDs also without nominations of this sort! gidonb (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided, with Comment - A consensus from 2006 is pretty near irrelevant today because of how much the music notability rules have changed over that time. Just browse the history page at WP:NMUSIC. The nominator noted this. Meanwhile, none of the voters above have delivered any reliable sources, even the one who cited WP:NEXIST while accusing the nominator of not doing the same. I happened to find this without too much trouble, but I'm undecided on the band's notability because the only other things I can find are blog-like album reviews. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted WP:NBAND, as did @Festucalex - that's your notability argument, right there. Made it, got the t-shirt, wearing it proudly. Them's the notability rules today, BTW... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify what you think you're arguing about, I said providing sources and not pointing at a policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: There is enough evidence [44] [45] [46] (albeit from very low-quality sources) that Altar released more than 2 albums with Displeased Records, which would make Altar notable per WP:BAND as pointed out above. However, I do not believe it difficult to challenge the notability of Displeased Records itself. If Displeased is struck down, Altar will go down with it in a 3rd AfD. Until then, it's a keep from me. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My keep is a procedural keep. I only noted that this is an improper nomination so no need to tell me what wasn't there. It shouldn't have been there. From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with any keep on this page. Only with the nomination. gidonb (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO for having 2 or more albums on major label.Naomijeans (talk) 17:48, 28 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!} 01:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adelita Kabuki Ami Tettegah[edit]

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

Non-notable beauty pageant contestant lacking significant and reliable coverage. Fails GNG and NMODEL. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Ghana. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fancy, I understand my article is being considered for deletion. Please what can i do to prevent this deletion from happening? Any suggestions please? Adelitattegah24 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adelitattegah24, I noticed that the article you created used many Instagram sources. please note that Wikipedia generally does not consider Instagram as a reliable source. You may see WP:NOTRELIABLE for more information. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please is it possible for my article to be retained/published if I update it with more reliable source? Is there a chance for me that way? Adelitattegah24 (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adelitattegah24, sorry that I am not certain about that. Article deletion depends on the consensus of the community. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adelitattegah24, yes, finding reliable sources could help retain this article, and you could add a list to this discussion for the community to review. You can also review the Africa sources list for more information about reliable sources published in and about Africa. I have not found many sources about her, e.g. [47], [48], [49]; it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Also note that article creator and main contributor Adelitattegah24 has a name oddly similar to that of the article's subject... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources for this assistant superintendent of something... No indication what the person does to warrant an article and I can't find any sources discussing them. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please the contributor Adelitattegah24 is not the same person. I did this Article using the same username or email I created for her. I'm a guy and she is someone I have worked with some years back and so I decided to set up a Wikipedia page/article for her looking at how far she has come with her achievements at her young age. I only thought it will be better to use same email, username and article name as one. Thanks. Adelitattegah24 (talk) 17:45, 26 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verónica Chen[edit]

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

Fails WP:Director and WP:GNG. I have performed a WP:BEFORE check and failed to find anything independent and secondary covering specifically Verónica Chen. Out of two sources provided in the article, one is an interview, and cannot be used to establish her notability. The Spanish-language article is similarly empty. It does mention that her film Marea Alta was nominated for a Sundance Award, and has some coverage and reviews, but that is a property of Marea Alta and not of Chen herself. Jaguarnik (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguarnik, don't forget to notify the article's creator about this AfD. You can use Template:Afd notice. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jaguarnik (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded Ms. Chen's filmography by adding links to films that had articles on es.wikipedia. This does not address notability. I haven't had time to look yet.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this biography in 2014. Today, I converted 2 of the bare URLs into references; translated a bit more from the Catalan-language biography; added 1 photo; and added 1 more sentence with a new reference. IMO, it's worth noting that 7 other language Wikipedias (Arabic, Catalan, Egyptian Arabic, French, Kazakh, Russian, and Spanish) all have articles about her; that said, of course, the subject must meet EN-WP policy requirements. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian and Kazakh pages are very empty and don't really indicate her notability - I know you are not using their existence as an argument for Chen's notability, but I believe specifically those two are there just because someone auto-translated them, and wouldn't pass for notability. I do not believe she is known worldwide.

For the 3 sources you added today, one from cines.com has poor grammar and seems autogenerated.
Verónica Chen they look for professionals in their cast who know how to get into the role and who have that almost magical ability to move viewers as if the story were being lived by themselves. Wu-Chao Ting, Héctor Díaz, Haien Qiu, Gloria Carrá, Nicolás Mateo are the chosen performers in some of his films due to their great stage talent. A director like Verónica Chen makes his best films in the Thriller genre. These themes are the most used by this director to recreate himself in his artistic works.
And one of them from La Vanguardia does not even mention Ms. Chen or her work at all.

TSventon noted down below that a whole chapter in a book about Argentinan filmmaking is devoted to her, so it may be that she is notable, but I don't believe these sources from the Internet prove her notability. Jaguarnik (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a chapter on Chen in Contemporary Argentine Women Filmmakers (Mirna Vohnsen, ‎Daniel Mourenza · 2023), pages 201 to 216, partly available on Google books which suggests that she is notable. TSventon (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if someone could use that book to fill out Chen's biography, if they have access to it.Jaguarnik (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to an abstract of that chapter.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source found by TSventon. Gamaliel (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the the book found by TSventon. Also, while I'm unsure Rosiestep's refs fully establish notability, I very much appreciate all the work she's put in to improving the article in the last 24 hours. It's much, much better.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, A. B.. ♥ --Rosiestep (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: I have aded the chapter as a source. It is mostly analysis of her films with little biographical information. I have also searched in the Wikipedia Library and found another piece by Beatriz Urraca, La configuración de la mirada en dos películas de Verónica Chen from Hispanic Research journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, September, 2010, 338–52. TSventon (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the resource. I think it would fit well in a section about her career, or her reception; I will begin working on it. Jaguarnik (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Following the recent improvements, the article certainly meets notability requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel confident with the sources added and improvements made that the subject definitively passes the notability threshold and should therefore be kept. --ARose Wolf 17:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to WP:KERRRZAPPP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets notability requirements and is much improved.

T. E. Meeks (talk) 17:10, 30 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 and redirect‎ to Baron Braybrooke. There seems to be consensus that an article at this point is not warranted, with even the "keep" !votes mostly arguing that the subject is notable because of his positions, but fail to present convincing coverage. A redirect to Baron Braybrooke seems harmless. However, given the history of this article I am also deleting it. If ever substantial sourcing becomes available, any admin could undelete the current article. Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was recreated in May 2023, but it still fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. British peers are not inherently notable. Neville was also never elected to the House of Lords, so WP:NPOL is not met either. I wonder if WP:SALT is worth considering here.

On top of the source assessment of the previous AfD (which closed as delete), I am adding my personal source assessment for the new sources below.

Sources 1-10:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz
"Braybrooke, 11th Baron, (Richard Ralph Neville) (born 10 June 1977)". Who's Who (174th ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing (published 6 December 2021). 2022. doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U289642. ISBN 9781472979070. Archived from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19.	WP:PRIMARY - written by the subject of the article and equal to a self-published source, per WP:RSP consensus	2022 RfC closer on this source: "There is a consensus that Who's Who (UK) is generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information".		✘ No
Morris, Susan (2020). Braybrooke, Baron (Neville) (Baron GB 1788). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (2019 ed.). Debrett's (published 4 April 2020). pp. 1832–1834. ISBN 9781999767051. Retrieved 2023-05-24.		While Debrett's is reliable for genealogy, per WP:RSP, it's a tertiary source as it acts as a reference work of noble titles, which means it cannot count towards the GNG, whose metric of notability is secondary sources. Furthermore, family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY.		✘ No
"NEVILLE - Births Announcements - Telegraph Announcements". Telegraph Announcements. 27 August 2019. Archived from the original on 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2023-05-24.			No in-depth coverage of the subject in this birth announcement	✘ No
Burton, Simon (30 September 2022). "Crossbench hereditary peers' by-election" (PDF). House of Lords. Retrieved 2022-10-19.	Candidate statements are written in the first person and are therefore not independent.			✘ No
"Lord Braybrooke". braybrooke.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2023-05-17. Retrieved 2023-05-17.	Website presumably belongs to the subject's family.			✘ No
"BRAYBROOKE" (PDF). The Roll of the Peerage. The Crown Office, Ministry of Justice (published 21 April 2023): 22. 2023. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2023-05-24.			Namecheck only.	✘ No
"Magdalene College, Cambridge (1998). "Statutes of Magdalene College in the University of Cambridge" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19.			Nothing about the subject, the 11th Baron of Braybrooke.	✘ No
Crockford's clerical directory 2018-2019: a directory of the clergy of the Church of England, the Church in Wales, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of Ireland. Church House Publishing (published 2017). 2018–2019. p. 1228. ISBN 9780715111284. Retrieved 2023-05-28.				✘ No
"Mr R.R. Neville and Miss S.A. Kelway-Bamber - Engagements Announcements - Telegraph Announcements". Telegraph Announcements. 9 September 2015. Archived from the original on 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2023-05-24.				✘ No
Companies House (UK). "George NEVILLE personal appointments". Archived from the original on 2023-05-23. Retrieved 2023-05-23.". Telegraph Announcements. 9 September 2015. Archived from the original on 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2023-05-24.				✘ 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}}.

Sources 11-21:

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz
"Lord Braybrooke - Aristocrat who loved women and trains and doted on the eight daughters unable to inherit his land". The Times. 10 June 2017. Archived from the original on 2023-05-26. Retrieved 2023-05-26.	Article is about the subject's father, insufficiently meets WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
Magdalene College, Cambridge (2017). "Magdalene College Magazine No. 61 2016–17" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19.	Article subject only gets a passing mention on page 8.	✘ No
"People Magdalene College". Magdalene College, Cambridge. 2023-05-17. Archived from the original on 2023-05-17. Retrieved 2023-05-17.		✘ No
"Register of Hereditary Peers who wish to stand for election as members of the House of Lords under Standing Order 9 (Hereditary peers: by-elections) as at 10 May 2022" (PDF). House of Lords. 10 May 2022. Retrieved 2023-05-24.	also WP:PRIMARY	✘ No
Burton, Simon (20 October 2022). "Crossbench hereditary peers' by-election, October 2022: result" (PDF). House of Lords. Retrieved 2022-11-20.		✘ No
Companies House (UK). "Bring a Bottle Limited - Officers". Archived from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19.	Just the company information; WP:PRIMARY.	✘ No
Sources 17-21: Telegraph, The Times, The Independent, The Guardian, GQ Magazine	only limited company coverage, no mention of subject	✘ 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}}.

Pilaz (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source review tables above, zero RS; and props for doing two of them. I just did one for another AfD and it's quite laborious... I find nothing for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ATD to Baron Braybrooke - absolutely no reason not to. Ingratis (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC) - amplified below. Ingratis (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would actually prefer (but pointless to !vote for it) that this and all comparable peerage articles should be kept, firstly because peers up to and including current ones are perennial subjects of enquiry, regardless of the current Wikipedia orthodoxy, and secondly because it's illogical to give articles (or as a bare if not substandard minimum, links) to some members of a series and not others, thus creating little gaps everywhere without obvious reason and creating an inept moth-eaten appearance, but that's the consequence of following "the rules" without any further thought. Not doing the reader any favours though. Ingratis (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I understand your point, but the truth is that many other NPOL-compliant peers don't receive significant coverage either. For consistency's sake, one could also nominate those NPOL-compliant but GNG-noncompliant articles, which would result in a GNG vs SNG ideological split at AfD like always. Personally, I find it more useful and less intensive to the AfD community to go after the NPOL-noncompliant, GNG-noncompliant peers. Pilaz (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created the third incarnation of this article as it came to my attention that the subject probably does have a role that satisfies notability. The subject is the Visitor of Magdalene College, Cambridge and is arguably therefore the most senior academic administrator of the college, and is a role that comes with real responsibilities (although these responsibilities have been eroded throughout the years). I believe the fact that the subject is the visitor satisfies WP:NACADEMIC, specifically point 6. I raise the point that all visitors of the Cambridge colleges (and indeed Oxford) have their own WP pages see List of college visitors of the University of Cambridge, and based on this alone it would therefore be anomalous for there not to be an article about the subject (although I acknowledge that other visitors in the list generally derive notability in other ways). Perhaps this is a case where the article needs improvement to clarify why exactly the subject is notable. The role of visitor is little understood, but it is by no means insignificant. The subject is also somewhat notable in the context of hereditary peerages, and the inheritance of landed estates, as his predecessor (10th Baron) had eight girls, but no boys (a chance of 1 in 256), and therefore the subject (distant cousin) inherited the title, but the estate went elsewhere. There was significant coverage in the UK press and legal firms at the time of this inheritance, making the case for the perceived injustice of primogeniture. The article did originally include a large amount of this information. DMEVB (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DMEVB, how high does a college visitor rank in the United Kingdom? Because from the University of Cambridge article, it seems to me that the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post described by WP:NACADEMIC #6 is the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor. The word "visitor" doesn't even appear in that article. Pilaz (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A fair view might be that: a visitor is to a constituent college as a chancellor is to a university. The visitor's main role is to be the last resort to adjudicate in college disputes (except where recent law has superseded-particularly in relation to student disputes). If, for example, there were a disagreement within the fellowship (academics who are senior members) of the college that the governing body could not resolve, the visitor would be the last internal member of the college to adjudicate on the matter, and normally they have absolute authority on matters they are asked to step-in to resolve and might seek their own independent legal representation if the matter is not straightforward.

The role of visitor is not a university position (at least at the universities concerned), but a college position, which is why you won't find it mentioned on the University of Cambridge article. The colleges are entities legally autonomous from the university and have their own governance as prescribed in the individual college statutes. If a visitor is not able to resolve a dispute, the next level-up is probably the Lord Chancellor or the legal system itself, and not in fact the university governance (although another complication is that the Chancellor of the University is in fact the visitor of a number of colleges).

To further answer your question of ranking by asking another question: if you were a current academic, member of staff, or student at Magdalene College (of which there are probably 500-1,000 at any given time, plus 10,000s alumni) would you want to know who the nominally-highest ranking member of the College is? I think the answer is an unequivocal yes. I believe the 10th Baron (previous) did step in to adjudicate certain matters, one being about reinstating a student who had been expelled for alcohol-related reasons. If you were in this situation, you would want to know who the person who might be able to help you is! But these are internal disputes, so you won't find information about them online. There was recently a high-profile dispute at Christ Church, Oxford, where I believe the visitor (The Crown) was asked to step-in to resolve, resulting in the Dean (head) of the college stepping down in 2022.

Some of the reasons you can't find much information about the visitor are:-

- Governance of a college is (historically) deliberately opaque and intractable to outsiders without intimate knowledge of its function, although this is becoming less common.

- The optics in the "age of meritocracy" of having a hereditary peer who is nominally the most senior member may not be desired by the college, and they may not want to draw attention to this fact. It quite frankly looks a bit odd when the college is undertaking "access to university" initiatives to deprived/poor areas of the country, when the college has a hereditary British Lord sat at the top in a hereditary role. It is not surprising that the visitor is not included in the online college directory, which is why one reference is a link to the online college directory to demonstrate absence of the subject.

- The subject does not appear to be a notable individual and so there isn't much specific information available about the subject online. But given the subject has inherited an important academic role at an academic institute (and despite their currently being no evidence of his attending university himself as of 2023) that's exactly why there should be an article about the subject! The case of how this inheritance has occurred is an interesting one. Previous Barons Braybrooke (as in some of the previous holders in title) have been longest-serving Master (head) of the college, alumni themselves, and have had very strong links to the college (and yes, therefore simultaneously visitor as well), and suddenly by fluke of inheritance, someone with no known association to the college, and is otherwise in contrast to other college visitors completely undistinguished, is visitor! The subject is notable because of these circumstances. Although individually some of the references in the article might be weak, the body of references taken as a whole, I believe provide sufficient verifiability for the subject's notability, which I claim only under WP:NACADEMIC #6. The references do provide sufficient evidence as to why the subject is notable under WP policy. DMEVB (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I can see the point that Braybrooke was never in the Lords, so he doesn't get that free ride, and it seems his only claim to distinction is the odd one of being the hereditary Visitor of a Cambridge college. But WP:N is not remotely about importance, the nitty gritty of it is verifiability, and we have that for almost everything. Unlike a print encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no practical limitation on its coverage, and its aspiration "all human knowledge is here" does take it to including some unimportant people, subject to verifiability. Having said that, when it comes to notable ancestors, we do not need much more than a simple link. Moonraker (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "nitty gritty of it" isn't verifiability, it's whether the subject has received 1) significant coverage in 2) multiple 3)independent 4) reliable sources, which is why the lithmus test for WP:N is the WP:GNG. So let me ask the question: do you think that the subject of this article passes the GNG or not? Pilaz (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pilaz I stand by verifiability -- and the way that is delivered is by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The GNG does not require "multiple sources". The crunch question is whether there is "significant coverage", WP:SIGCOV, and that depends on the biography in Debrett's Peerage, which you say is a reliable source, but not a secondary source. The WP:GNG does not make a distinction. WP:Reliable sources prefers secondary sources, but I say Debrett's is a secondary source, and what it says about tertiary sources makes no sense. I agree of course that Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source, being constructed from secondary and primary sources, but it is surely an absurd idea that "encyclopedias" in general are "tertiary". There could not be a non-notable person with a biography in Encyclopedia Britannica, in which each article is written by a suitable scholar. On The Times, I do not have access to it where I am today. So I am erring on the side of caution. Moonraker (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth bullet point of the GNG says that sources must be secondary. Besides, coverage in Debrett's is only a two-sentence passing mention, hardly SIGCOV. And to address your point that it is surely an absurd idea that "encyclopedias" in general are "tertiary", see WP:TERTIARY, which clearly lists encyclopedias. WP:SECONDARY is quite clear that a secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, and I'm not seeing any thought and reflection in the Debrett's passage. Pilaz (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deja vu. I closed the 2nd AFD nomination for this subject nominated by the same editor. I still think we could use additional input on sources and the possibility of a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this results in a keep result, there should be a one-year moratorium on renominating the poor fellow. Having said that, titles and all that apart, there are simply not the sources here to pass WP:GNG. The Telegraph announcements are small ads, the bottleshop coverage isn't about the subject at all. We are left with a single RS piece in The Times - and that just cutteth not the mustard. He's simply not a notable noble. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - expanding on my above Redirect !vote: like it or not, peers - ALL peers - are plausible search terms, but this one especially so because of the circumstances, mentioned above by User:DMEVB, of his succession to the title. This may not be quite enough to warrant a Keep in the face of a rigid adherence to the "rules", but it's certainly enough to merit a redirect to the Baron Braybrooke article which cd usefully take up some of DMEVB's refs (the ones removed from this article by a SP IP editor). Ingratis (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and when I say "Redirect", I mean keeping the page history, as I think it's possible that the article may be developed in future. Ingratis (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(What is the SP acronym please?) The IP editor of the article removed a large number of references that would strengthen the Keep vote. The IP editor edited two articles only: initially Magdalene College, Cambridge, and then Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke. They seem to be an experienced user as they quote WP policy in their edits. DMEVB (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SP = Single Purpose or SPA, single purpose account. Not generally regarded as a good thing at AfD, which would normally only attract participation from more experienced editors rather than those with no or very few edits under their belt. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the acronym - as explained by Alexandermcnabb. Ingratis (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baron Braybrooke What did change since the last consesus? I can't see the point why this article was recreated. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could it meet G4 of CSD? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, without prejudice. Maybe draftily and resubmit via AFC. I personally feel unconvinced by Moonraker's reasoning for him existing on Wikipedia, but if better evidence for notability could be brought to my attention, I would be willing to adjust my position, and while conditionally I am weak delete as of writing, I would endorse draftifying his article if I see better proof of notability InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:42, 3 August 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 Fox Sports (Australia). ✗plicit 11:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Netball[edit]

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

Proposing for deletion as this TV channel does not exist and it never replaced Fox Sports 505 as the article suggests. Otchiman (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Australia. Otchiman (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: pinging GMH Melbourne; you added the Sources exist tag, could you point us to what you found?

Actualcpscm (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following sources indicate Fox Sports 505 is still in operation [50] [51] [52]. In the main article Fox Sports (Australia) the channel is referred to as a Pop Up channel on Fox Sports 505. There is confusion as per Fox Sports branding guidelines "channels will be flavoured with code colours, icons and content regularly or 24 hours a day" [53]. Therefore, in the case of Fox Sports 505 during Netball games the channel logo is flavoured with a purple Fox Sports logo [54] however if the channel is showing Cricket for example the logo will be flavoured to reflect this [55]. Fox Sports does dedicate some channels to a particular sport such as Fox Sports News (Australia), Fox League, Fox Footy and Fox Cricket. These channels only broadcast Sports News, NRL, AFL and Cricket respectively and are branded under these names and referred to as such in the TV Guides 24/7. The same is not true for Fox Sports 505 which shows various sports and is referred to as Fox Sports 505 in TV Guides. Otchiman (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting seeking more input. I'm a bit confused by the nomination as the article states that Fox Netball was launched in 2022. Are you saying that it doesn't exist as a separate TV channel? Because it does seem to exist in some form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Correct Fox Netball does not exist as separate TV channel and thus never replaced Fox Sports 505 as the article indicates . When Fox Sports 505 is showing netball the Fox Sports 505 channel logo is changed to a Fox Netball logo. Otchiman (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fox Sports (Australia). The article as it is reeks of a GNG failure. There isn't much to merge, per se, but the listing of the 505 channel should note that the channel is possibly? branded as Fox Netball when presenting such content. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fox Sports (Australia). Doesn't pass WP:GNG, which isn't surprising since this seems to just be an occasional re-branding of another channel. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 27 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!} 01:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nawfal Shamoun[edit]

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

This article about a musician is poorly sourced and reads promotional. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found any reliable sources to add. The best I can find is this video from Assyria TV. I see from the article that Nawfal Shamoun lives in Germany, and I have looked for German-language sources. There may be sources in Arabic which I haven't found. As it is, though, the article doesn't demonstrate notability per WP:NMUSIC. Tacyarg (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to say also looked for Swedish sources, as article refers to him working in Germany but living in Sweden. Tacyarg (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Iraq, and Germany. Tacyarg (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:21, 19 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!} 00:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely nothing in Arabic. Mccapra (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Nothing in Arabic (نوفل شمعون) or Syriac (ܢܘܦܠ ܫܡܥܘܢ). 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:49, 26 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 Separatism in the United Kingdom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential breakup of the United Kingdom[edit]

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

The first three article tags pretty much spell out the issue here, as if the title alone weren't enough. Look, it's possible that the UK may "break up" in some fashion. Until it happens, all is speculation. Yes, it's not quite as bad as Second American Revolution (deleted) and Second American Civil War (also deleted) were, if only due to the lack of a catchphrase that helps stoke up the alarmism. But it's still the kind of speculative analysis article that policy rags publish and we do not. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I read the Second American Civil War article in full a couple times for that AFD. I've skimmed this one quickly once so far. But I can already tell, this article is much better than that one was. It has problems but may be salvageable in some way. I am not sure yet. (Note I skimmed Second American Revolution as well, and bad as it was, it was "just" a COATRACK and that discussion probably doesn't share as much with this one.) —siro χ o 05:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Siroxo, you are correct that this page looks better, but that is because it is constructed largely from text copy-pasted from other articles. You can select sentences, google them, and find the source Wikipedia pages. For instance, the first line of the devolution section is on Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom), and that section also has copy pastes from Welsh devolution. Much of the original page was created in this properly flagged copywithin: [56] from Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The history information is found all over the place. If this page is deleted, none of this information will be lost. It is all on better targetted articles. It brings together many sources talking about all the aspects covered, but where those sources don't talk about the break up, there is likely to be synthesis. There are, however, references to speculation in a newspapers, and a think tank or two. It is not that no-one has speculated about such a breakup. In the wake of Brexit it was clear that many people spoke about it, and the page creator could certainly argue that this establishes notability for the subject. The reason I think this should be deleted, however, is that the presentation here is speculative, prone to synthesis, and unencyclopaedic. The subject is treated encyclopaedically on other pages. It is not that no-one has spoken about the breakup - it is that this is not, in my view, the best way to present the material in an encyclopaedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten a chance to read it deeper and I tend to agree. For now, because I don't think history needs to be scrubbed the way it did for Second American Civil War, I will take your analysis and suggest a redirect to consensus redirect ~~to Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland#The "disuniting" of the United Kingdom~~. I am open to changing my mind. —siro χ o 09:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a redirect, but have been considering the best target. I think I will agree with suggestions below that the redirect be to Separatism in the United Kingdom if closed as redirect. The one you suggest is perfectly good too, but redirecting to a section has a risk that the section could be removed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect to that target as well. —siro χ o 21:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a one-time contributor to this article. It fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (new position; see below), as the article (technically draft) creator, it quickly drifted too much into WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTALBALL territory, as well as majorly cut-and-paste by other editors, and have been unhappy with it since for it to bear my name. I did see "Breakup of the UK" used in news, but it slowly became clear later that is was more of a clickbait title used for Scottish independence, rather than a fully a topic on its own. Initially gave up on the draft, until it was found by someone else. Everything else, quickly went to synth unfortunately, and discussions on hypotheticals ensued on its talk. Too large to re-write. And if anything is eventually discussed significantly on the topic, WP:TNT can apply. Dank Jae 10:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom which is effectively an index article to all the actually notable articles in this topic area. The target could do with more prose and anything actually verifiable could be merged there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less keen about redirects than most, but this does make sense as an alternative. Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom. This event hasn't happened, and WP cannot predict' it happening, however there are separatist movements afoot in the U.K. Like how there are in Spain (with Catalonia), or France (with Basque) etc. CaribDigita (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. This is a fairly plausible search term, and some its redirects in turn (e.g. Breakup of the United Kingdom and Dissolution of the United Kingdom) are even more so. TompaDompa (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we're equally distributed between delete !votes and redirect !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Thryduulf. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as indicated above, I suggested delete, but am content with a redirect. I have therefore struck my delete and replacing it with explicit redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom, would also tolerate redirecting here, per reasons stated above, changing from originally delete. While also stated above, Formation of the United Kingdom has such a section on this topic, it technically does not fit with the title of the article (formation exclusively), so there's a risk of removal, unless it is renamed to "Territorial evolution" like all the others. Dank Jae 13:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hypothetical partition of Belgium exists.

Potential enlargement of the European Union exists.
United Ireland exists.
Unification of Moldova and Romania exists.
Greater Netherlands exists.

Etc. Just because a political idea or potential future event is not a reality (yet), doesn't mean there can't be an article about it. It just needs to meet WP:GNG and not be full of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL etc. You know the drill. I do not see nominator invoking any kind of policy other than an implicit WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but on the flipside, mention of the other pages is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy arguments for deletion have been given above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm saying that in order to argue that I don't think an article like Hypothetical partition of Belgium would be deleted because it has been so openly and widely discussed for decades, with its zenith in 2006/2007 with the mockumentary Bye Bye Belgium and subsequent political crisis, where at one point an opinion poll had 49% of Flemings say they wouldn't mind if the country broke up.

Given the Scottish Indyref of 2014, the divisiveness of Brexit, the ever-present rhetoric by the SNP (often backed by others) of holding a second Indyref now that Scotland (which voted 61% Remain), plus the apparent increase in opinions favouring a United Ireland (which was likely to happen demographically anyway, but shifted faster due to the Brexit and the Irish border issues), there has been virtual nonstop public debate on a potential breakup of the UK since 2013. Rewrite? Yeah. Delete? Nah, mate. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:06, 26 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!} 00:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Podio[edit]

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that lacks sustained coverage beyond WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Wyoming. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual with a cousin who reports the news. There are only 3 sources in Gnews, lists of participants in the pageant. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed. Non-notable. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:28, 27 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 List of Helluva Boss episodes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Helluva Boss)[edit]

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

I don't believe this episode (or the other episodes) of Helluva Boss pass WP:GNG. The episodes are not covered in depth to warrant a standalone article. SWinxy (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the other episodes for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Internet. SWinxy (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all – All these articles are using the same sources, which I think is a strong indication that they're all one subject. Most of the sources are primary, while others are about the show as a whole (or even more about Hazbin Hotel). There's not much here. I think the use of this source in "The Circus" is particularly egregious... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect just "The Circus" for now until a little more referencing can be added (I was thinking it might need a little more), but Keep the rest; the pilot in particular has six+ independent sources and does pass WP:GNG, along with "Murder Family" and "Loo Loo Land", which only use the same two references about the Ursa Major Award they were nominated for because they were nominated for the same award in the same year, while "The Circus" was nominated for that award two years later. 113.30.191.65 (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even for the pilot, which came out a year before the series was confirmed, I can't really find much dedicated sources. I'm not convinced The Geek Waffle is a reliable source, and everything else is either a primary source or about the series as a whole (like these: [57] [58] [59]). Is there even a single reliable secondary source about the pilot specifically? I also question the RS-status of Wherever I Look and Flayrah, though mostly I just don't find them enough. The same The Geeky Waffle, Flayra, Animation Magazine, and Comic Book Resources articles are used for all of these articles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)
No, the Screen Rant article was written when only the pilot was out, noting that it was only "the immediate success [of Hazbin Hotel that] allowed Medrano to commission an 11-minute spinoff pilot titled Helluva Boss", before noting that while "more episodes of Helluva Boss will likely come to YouTube as a web series, Hazbin Hotel has been picked up for a proper series order." The Flayrah article individually reviews each episode of the first season of Helluva Boss in order on a single article, while the CBR article reviews the opening scene of "Loo Loo Land", while also briefly comparing it to the previous episode, so it would only be used on the pages for "Murder Family" and "Loo Loo Land". The MovieWeb article also referred to this scene, as well as the casting of Jonathan Freeman for "The Circus", hence why it was used on both those pages. And the Animation Magazine reference is also about the initial eight-episode order that followed the success of the pilot, those eight episodes including "Murder Family" and "Loo Loo Land" also, hence its inclusion to reference that the episode had been ordered. Some references are used on different pages, but not all of them. 113.30.191.65 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added referencing to the pilot to ensure it all passes WP:GNG. The award-nominated episodes look more detailed than most Rick and Morty episode pages. 1-1-2-2-SixtySix (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation)[reply]
A lot of them are WP:SPSs. In general, there lacks reliable sources talking extensively enough on any individual episode. SWinxy (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or split to List of Helluva Boss episodes if the vote goes the other way. Looks to be just-enough sourcing to keep, personally. MangoloITCrowd (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of 1-1-2-2-SixtySix, see investigation)[reply]
Keep per above, but make that page. If every episode gets reviewed, there should be an episode page. 86.43.91.37 (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I would just merge to Helluva Boss, nothing terribly notable about this episode it seems, no sources discuss it in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Helluva Boss episodes or to just Helluva Boss; I think there's enough for it to be included in an article about Helluva Boss but not enough for its own WP article. The sourcing is really bad - Letterboxd should never be considered a source to use for Wikipedia, it's a platform that aggregates user reviews; YouTube for obvious reasons is not a source that can be used to establish notability; there's a review from Medium which cannot be used to establish notability either as a blogging site (see WP:MEDIUM); I've checked a few, but not all, of the other sources and they are about Helluva Boss the series, not the first episode.Jaguarnik (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an episode list. The sources do not seem reliable enough for standalone articles on these episodes, a lot are random people's blogs, WP:USERG applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the sources aren't the best, and should be cut/trimmed, but there are enough overall that do seem to qualify as being significant to keep. The pilot episode on its own has enough coverage to remain even if other episodes are removed/split to a list page. マリオマリオ (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of 1-1-2-2-SixtySix, see investigation)[reply]
Keep per Japan, but add one of those "expand article" tags to the second episode. NordMend (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Helluva Boss#Episodes, I'm just not seeing any evidence that these episodes pass WP:GNG. While they may have been nominated for notable awards, these awards do not seem to have resulted in any significant coverage of the episodes in question, outside of unreliable websites and blogs that do not contribute to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the pilot episode is notable, maybe the first two episodes too, but not "The Circus". I would merge its plot summary into the proposed episode list for the series or a first season page. Applestarter (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of 1-1-2-2-SixtySix, see investigation)[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.

[StLo941009-1] "Whatever happened to the Bonnee Butter Beefs..." St. Louis Post-Dispatch. October 9, 1994. p. Magazine 25. Retrieved July 26, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

[StLo610709-2] "Bankruptcy Petition Filed Against Old Bonnee Co". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. July 9, 1961. p. 10A. Retrieved July 26, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

[StLo610906-3] "$559,644 Debts, Assets Of $1026 Listed For Firm". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. September 6, 1961. p. 3A. Retrieved July 26, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]