Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 08	July 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Occupation Of German Pacific Islands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Japanese Occupation Of German Pacific Islands

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

This article stub (Japanese Occupation Of German Pacific Islands) provides no new information, and is covered in much better detail in the articles Japanese entry into World War I and Japan during World War I. It doesn't even provide any real information on the occupation of German territories, which is the title of the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Japan, Germany, and Oceania. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary WP:FORK of Japanese entry into World War I and South Seas Mandate. Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just the bit about Tatsuo and the Provisional South Seas Defense to South Seas Mandate. —siro χ o 05:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Info is already covered in Japan during World War I. APK whisper in my ear 06:59, 10 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. Consensus is that this is substantially a WP:CFORK of metagame, and that this particular description or definition of the concept is difficult to verify. Sandstein 07:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most effective tactics available[edit]

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

"Most effective tactics available" is not what "meta" stands for, but metagame. It seems like a backronym of some kind. See [1]. That makes this article something of a hoax at best. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely a backronym. Meta just refers to strategies about strategy: the "meta" of the game, as opposed to the base mechanics. It's possible that an article on video game meta may be notable enough for an article without mention to "Most effective tactics available", but it still seems like Wiktionary would be a better place than here. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge or weak keep. Not a hoax. Emerging niche esport concept that is sometimes confused with more estabilished "metagame" (even in the third source cited in the article...), yes, but not a hoax per first source cited (also used in some, but just a few dozen at best, academic works like [2] and GS results). It has some emerging presence, but I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV treatment - that said, I did not read most of those works; but the term is not used in their titles, and many are conference paper or student thesis. I don't think delete is the best coursse, but this is a stub that could be merged to Glossary of video game terms where it even has an entry. Alternatively, I am open to seeing this kept if someone can demonstrate SIGCOV is met with reliable sources.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, backronym does not meet GNG. There is nothing reasonable to merge here. The only source in the article that supports this backronym is a student publication and probably not reliable. A quick WP:BEFORE suggests there's nothing better elsewhere either. Not a hoax, more of a troll/flame-bait, but absolutely not something that we can write an NPOV article about right now. —siro χ o 06:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Ref 1 is a school newspaper. Refs 2 and 3 do not mention the term at all. This is not a real thing. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced; to the extent that the general topic needs to be covered, it can be done at metagame, though there's no salvageable content here to merge. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Metagame already exists. Even if this is a different concept from metagame, the article has weak standing on its own to differentiate itself.Uelly (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—prevalence of the distinct concept of meta as "current top videogame strategy" is supported by sources 1,2,3, four scholarly articles, and a new in-depth source I found:

Source 1:

In essence, a "meta" in gaming terminology is a generally agreed upon strategy by the community.

Source 2:

The Representation of Meta in Gaming Today

Meta in gaming is used to describe the latest strategic methods and trends among those who play a particular game.

Source 3:

The meta, or the metagame, is a huge part of competitive gaming that refers to a number of things depending on the game that you play.

The term has become more commonplace in esports, with casters and developers using it to describe what is powerful, or overpowered, in matches.

Another source with in-depth coverage I encountered:

https://www.ekfluidgaming.com/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-meta-gaming/

(contains the expression "most effective tactics available")

The sources (ex. #2, #3) clearly say that the word "metagame" has taken on two unrelated meanings over time. The first is "finding alternate ways to play a game" (what the metagame page mostly talks about, barring synth/coatrack content about the second concept). The second concept, more commonly under the abbreviation "meta" is about the "current top strategy". Another source:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/meta-meaning

In the world of gaming, meta is used in two ways. Meta can be used as an acronym for “most effective tactics available,” and calling something “meta” means that it’s an effective way to achieve the goal of the game, whether it’s to beat other players or beat the game itself. Meta can also be short for metagame, which is using information about the game, derived from the world beyond the game or its rules, to influence the outcome of the game or gain a competitive edge.

The first definition corroborates well with other sources. The second definition here, while a bit misinformed, is still about the "metagame" as finding ways to play a game beyond the rules. It refers more to Metagaming (role-playing games) than metagame.

There is also a plethora of scholarly articles treating "most effective tactics available" (and not the other definition of the word metagame):

http://e-journal.sastra-unes.com/index.php/JILP/article/view/497

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Naomi-Nicola/publication/369170039_The_Dynamics_of_Gambling_Behavior_Among_Genshin_Impact_Players_in_Indonesia/links/640cb4cba1b72772e4ee4994/The-Dynamics-of-Gambling-Behavior-Among-Genshin-Impact-Players-in-Indonesia.pdf

https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/53330/1/978-3-030-82767-0.pdf#page=43

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3410404.3414243

(all contain the expression "most effective tactics available")

In view of all the above, think the best solution, that would also solve synthesis problems in the metagame article, is:

Merge all contents relating to "the current top strategy" here.
Leave out "playing the game differently" content to other articles.
Use the dedicated DAB page for "metagame", and/or page headers to point out the multiple meanings of the word.

Clearly, those are two different concepts with the same word. Deleting this article or merging would exacerbate the synthesis problems on the metagame article, make it much harder to maintain quality due to its bimodal scope. Lastly, WP:NOTDICT#Good_definitions explicitly discourages writing articles about words which have multiple definitions.

For convenience, here are also links to the two other articles about "metagame":

Metagaming (role-playing games)

Metagame Kate the mochii (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I appreciate your work and desire to improve things and hope you are able to here. Regarding the sources, of the two papers I'm able to see, one (researchgate.net) seems to be a publication by 4 bachelors students, nobody with a degree credited. The other (oapen.org) does not use the backronym in question at all. "Ekfluidgaming" is marketing copy on a store page, not reliable, grammarly seems to be WP:UGC on a product website, not reliable.

Now, even if we were able to establish notability of the backronym, which we have not, I would still strongly suggest a merge to the metagame until we have a strong demonstrated need to split. My suggestion is not theoretical here. Take a look at the Metagaming (role-playing games) article: it currently has WP:OR problems and massive under-referencing problems. As an avid tabletop roleplayer I can personally confirm some of it to match my understanding, but I also disagree with some of it as well, and ultimately that's why we rely on references to support statements in articles, and not our own knowledge as individuals.

There is no real fear of WP:SYNTH here. Existing sources in metagame explain the underlying concept of the "game about the game", and cover the concept of competitive video game "metas" in tandem with other aspects (like designed metagames in roguelite games, etc). Perhaps the only exception being the woefully undereferenced tabletop rpg side, which I might look to improve sometime after this reply. I think if editors are truly interested in improving coverage of this concept or any aspect thereof, improving this article seems to be the most effective tactic available.

Right now, the encyclopedia is best served by removing the page under question. If we find any reliable source that defines "Most effective tactics available" as a backronym (ideally a bit of a description or analysis, rather than just a mention in passing, lest Wikipedia propagate the slang), then I suggest a redirect, and citing that source on metagame, and only splitting once we have a demonstrated need. —siro χ o 20:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this additional in-depth source which I forgot to mention:

https://www.cbr.com/league-of-legends-best-off-meta-picks/ Kate the mochii (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, that site was sold to Valnet in 2016 so reliability is iffy: discussion about CBR from a year ago, and it's a passing mention. I promise I'm not trying to be difficult, and it's quite reasonable that a redirect and note could be created based on a source we just haven't found yet. But even in my cursory examination of social media (eg [3][4][5]), there's a lot of argument about whether the backronym is meaningful or valid. I personally don't trust a passing reference in CBR to have been based on a reasonable evaluation to act as a reliable secondary source that can verify the use of the term in the gaming community. In fact, CBR making this claim without even mentioning "backronym" "debate" or even merely weaseling and saying "according to some" casts further doubt on reliability of this particular piece. Keep in mind this is indeed a neutral point of view issue. If some of the gaming community is adamant this is not true, and some if it is adamant it is true, we need to rely on a reliable secondary source to evaluate, or we're not remaining neutral. —siro χ o 21:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your linked discussion, I think CBR is reliable for this purpose. The sources do not seem to debate about or argue about anything, so I am not sure about your second statement. Kate the mochii (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also another issue which I forgot to point out but I will mention here is that M.E.T.A. is usually called meta and almost never metagame. Kate the mochii (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that seems to be well documented in at least one seemingly reliable source you provided (the oapen.org one maybe?), and a sentence noting that "meta" is the common term with citation would be a valuable addition to the relevant section of the metagame article! I see that it's mentioned elsewhere in the article, unreferenced, definitely needs improvement. —siro χ o 21:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant essay would be Wikipedia:Coatrack Kate the mochii (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a distinct concept from metagame. This title is an incorrect backronym not in wide use, so I think we're better off without the redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to metagame. All three of Metagame, Metagaming (role-playing games), and Most effective tactics available are discussing the same concept (an approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.) in different contexts. I don't think that the idea of using the best strategies is distinct enough from metagaming in general to warrant its own article, and the sourcing on the term "Most effective tactics available" is dubious, but there might be enough to include a sentence or two about it in the etymology section. At the very least all three articles need some cleanup to define their scope. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the sourcing on the term "Most effective tactics available" is dubious

https://www.cbr.com/league-of-legends-best-off-meta-picks/

http://e-journal.sastra-unes.com/index.php/JILP/article/view/497

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Naomi-Nicola/publication/369170039_The_Dynamics_of_Gambling_Behavior_Among_Genshin_Impact_Players_in_Indonesia/links/640cb4cba1b72772e4ee4994/The-Dynamics-of-Gambling-Behavior-Among-Genshin-Impact-Players-in-Indonesia.pdf

https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/53330/1/978-3-030-82767-0.pdf#page=43

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3410404.3414243

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/meta-meaning

https://www.ekfluidgaming.com/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-meta-gaming/

All of the above define "most effective tactics available" and they are wp:independent of each other. Kate the mochii (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All three of Metagame, Metagaming (role-playing games), and Most effective tactics available are discussing the same concept

I would also like to note that an approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game is very different from the best way to play a game (definition of meta). Operating outside of the rules is the direct opposite to being the best at a game. In fact, people engage in "metagaming" due to being bored with trying to play the "meta". Kate the mochii (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, the talk page over at metagame has been mentioning this exact same issue since 2007:

This article begins by defining metagaming as things done outside of the intended rules of the game, but several of the examples and much of the body text in the article define metagaming as simply advanced strategy within the intended rules of a game. Ideally, someone should find a reliable source on what metagaming is, cite it, and rewrite the article to match it. In the worst case, this article should be nominated for deletion as original research until someone can find a clear definition.

Splitting the metagame article into this one solves the scope issue. Kate the mochii (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Campus Roundtable[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Mooonswimmer 23:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. I can't find any coverage in RS other than brief mentions. APK whisper in my ear 07:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston. The Israel Campus Roundtable site now redirects there, to the CJP's campus operations. [6] CJP of Greater Boston has regular news coverage and a history going back to 1885.[7] John Nagle (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John Nagle, Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston has been moved to Draft space so a Merger to this article is not possible currently. Do you have another possible merge target in mind? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Category:Jewish_charities_based_in_the_United_States doesn't have that Boston-based umbrella organization, so there's no good place to merge to until someone fills in that stub. CJP is more notable than many in that category. Anyone want to fill in that draft? John Nagle (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. All mentions online are in passing. No WP:SIGCOV. ARandomName123 (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of first women lawyers and judges in Arizona#State Bar of Arizona. Star Mississippi 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Loo[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. WP:BEFORE check comes up empty regarding secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing found is press releases and university PR, nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The line of reasoning is WP:BIO because of the awards and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2023 Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Starlighsky, and the blatant POV of the nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing to indicate notability here. Being head of a state bar association does not seem to constitute a significant achievement in real terms; lots of other women have held the equivalent role. Deb (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see which notability guideline this individual could meet? How do her achievements meet ANYBIO? Criteria are just not met, and there is insufficient secondary coverage to verify the awards beyond primary sources. She does not have a sufficient publishing score to justify inclusion on WP:ACADEMIC either. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of first women lawyers and judges in Arizona where she is listed. Should sufficient sources become available in the future then an article for her could be created. Lamona (talk) 17:06, 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!} 22:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: passing coverage exists here [8] [9], I'm not sure if there is secondary independent coverage after looking at the sources in the article and my own search. It looks like she doesn't have notable books, publications, or legal decisions--other avenues for notability may be possible. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of first women lawyers and judges in Arizona per Lamona.-KH-1 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lamona. Doesn't seem to be quite enough to work with here. Policy-based rationale follows.
Rule: although not mentioned above, the applicable criterion appears to be WP:NBASIC, which states People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. (I am tempted to make an argument that WP:ACADEMIC applies because Arizona law, like the law of any US state, is a distinct field of scholarly work and inquiry, but I'll save my breath.) WP:DGFA reminds us when in doubt, don't delete, and WP:PRESERVE highlights the importance of keeping content within the positive-sum wiki process whenever possible.
Sources: I am not quite persuaded by the other participants' negative view of the sources, for example [10] seems to have a nontrivial amount of secondary content despite also containing interview excerpts, and is from 15 years before Loo became head of the Arizona Bar Association so would appear to be independent. Nonetheless I don't really see a critical mass of coverage here.
Conclusion: Suitable for redirection. -- Visviva (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visviva, I'm not sure that the Arizona Bar Association magazine is truly independent - she's a member of the bar, and the magazine promotes the bar and its members. I see that is a whole magazine page - I'd probably rate it as partial source. I haven't seen any guidance for professional organs vis-a-vis the members of the profession so this is my gut feeling. If there is some, please pass it on. Lamona (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be greatly shocked to find that there are sharp divisions on this topic, much as for local news. But in my experience bar journals are typically edited to a very high standard and often employ professional journalists. Even member-written articles are typically peer reviewed (PDF), which is notably a level of rigor that very few US-based law reviews accomplish. It's true that a bar journal is unlikely to run a negative profile of a member (or even a non-member), but I'd be quite surprised to find that any statements in that profile hadn't been carefully reviewed and fact-checked before publication. I would accordingly argue that bar journal articles generally meet the lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved requirement suggested by the Wikipedia:Independent sources essay. -- Visviva (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems to be the best approach to this. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of British comic strips[edit]

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

This seems absurdly broad in scope when various categories exist. Obviously the list is currently incomplete, but if it were it would cover everything in the Eagle, Beano, Dandy, 2000AD, Viz, Lion, Buster, Battle and Tammy for starters, which I'd estimate at around a thousand plus strips instantly. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete I’m sure someone is going to show up and start waving WP:NLIST and “valid navigational lists” around shortly, but I’m voting per WP:IAR. Nobody maintains these, they’re wildly over-broad in scope, and most readers arrive from internal links in prose articles and internal/external searches anyway so the benefit of a “navigational” list is negligible. Replace per Thryduulf. Pointless duplicate of existing lists. Dronebogus (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with a list of lists. List of Beano comic strips, List of Dandy comic strips, List of Viz comic strips, and List of 2000 AD stories at least exist already. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s actually a very good idea Dronebogus (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds good. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though thinking about it the problem is that some titles have the "List of strips" in the main article, if there are few enough to put in the article or if the title is centred largely around one strip (say, Marvelman), so those would slip through the cracks. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why those lists could not be included in this new index list. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any entry is of things notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article or significant mention in another article. Otherwise purge them from the list. This list is far more useful than Category:British comic strips since you can sort things by year, publication, and whether it was in a newspaper, or comic book. Dream Focus 03:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have lists, plural, of notable British comic strips by publication. Are you suggesting we keep this largely redundant list just so we can, I don’t know, maximize the amount of busywork possible on Wikipedia? Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is the ongoing problem with there being no universal definition for comic strips or even "British" in this context. Technically you could make an argument for anything from a Steve Bell political cartoon to Watchmen being a British comic strip. After a couple of random dips into the page history it seems to have been set up as a container for newspaper/magazine strips and the like before being expanded with strips from comic titles. Problem again being that some are both. The argument for sortable categories isn't bad, but at the same time I'm highly unconvinced the list can ever be made useful for that purpose, and that if it ever was it would be so big it would need splitting up by decades or something. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:NLIST given that British comics is a notable article. There could be a decision to split and transform into a list of lists, but AfD is the wrong forum for that. There is nothing strictly non-notable that should be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 9 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!} 22:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Improving the list is wonderful, but I will indeed cite WP:NLIST and refer to the hundreds of books that have discussed British comic strips as a group. —siro χ o 07:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with hopes for refactoring/improvement as discussed above, per Siroxo. No objection to improvement or wholesale replacement per Thryduulf. There seems to be no dispute that this meets WP:NLIST. I agree with Dronebogus' now-struck comment that NLIST, like all Wikipedia rules, ultimately derives any authority it has from serving our encyclopedic purpose (i.e. being a valid invocation of WP:IAR against itself). But I believe in this case NLIST does in fact serve the encyclopedia by pushing us toward a positive-sum solution. I am but a humble ignoramus in this topic area, but based on the discussion and links here it seems to me that an optimal approach would be to break out the list by magazine/publisher and discuss those outlets that already have lists of their own in summary style. Whatever the best solution, the current "known vs. lesser known" breakdown can surely be improved upon. -- Visviva (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viva admin. Okoslavia (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering everyone's thoughts I'm more than happy to withdraw the AfD (if that needs doing, obviously moot considering the votes). As I seem to be the only active editor with interest in the field I'm interested in working to salvage the page as part of an ongoing attempt to bring a worthy but neglected area closer to Wikipedia's modern standards. Does anyone have any examples of lists that could function as a template for improving the page? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! There's the famous List of lists of lists you could start from. —siro χ o 08:49, 11 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 Fairy chess piece. Star Mississippi 20:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard (chess)[edit]

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

A particular piece from a not particularly significant commercial chess variant. Only sources are WP:UGC. A discussion at the chess wikiproject didn't suggest anything promising, and the article creator never responded to this. This New York Times article (which is not in our article) is probably the best thing that's out there, and it's the epitome of a passing mention. PROD on Wizard removed without a substantive justification. I am also nominating the following related page, which suffers from exactly the same issues:

-- JBL (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I'm sentimentally sympathetic to harmless bits of hobbyist material (as I said somewhere in the Doug Coldwell cleanup effort, I think Wikipedia would be poorer without roadside attractions). But the sourcing is unreliable and/or superficial (both being briefly stated and, potentially worse, not reflecting any intense analysis). The "Chess Variants" website is user-generated content, and none of the particular pages on it that are cited in these articles appear to be written by subject-matter experts, in the Wikipedian sense of the term, so that escape clause is inapplicable. As an organizational matter, having articles on pieces rather than games seems to have generated some confusion, thanks to the reuse of names between variants. The natural conceptual unit is the chess variant, or perhaps the overall topic of chess variants, not the piece. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree w/ what you wrote, but keep in mind there can be exceptions, e.g. princess, empress, and recently too Berolina pawn (see Talk:Berolina pawn#Proposed split); the The Oxford Companion to Chess has stand-alone entries for those three as well (plus others incl camel, amazon, nightrider, grasshopper, etc.). --IHTS (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per UGC concerns, and I'm not finding much on google search. Valereee (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Fairy chess piece per ATD. There is obviously no V issue, merely a lack of SIGCOV causing N, which is a picture perfect rationale for an upmerge to a larger article covering the topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, there's obviously nothing but trivial mentions, and the sourcing to user-generated content only means there's no verifiability, either, so a merge seems unsupportable. Finally, as far as the possibility of a redirect: do we know what a user would be searching for with sufficient certainty, to unambiguously redirect them? What if they're looking for something in Harry Potter? I did Wikipedia searches for Wizard in chess and Fool in chess (as searchers are not likely to use parentheses) and the Omega results were in the top 3 or 4 (and so was Potter), which would argue for deletion, unless we're certain what users are searching for. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairy chess piece. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Fairy chess piece. Don't oppose removal, though. Deckkohl (talk) 21:05, 9 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!} 22:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to improve the encyclopedia is to redirect with perhaps a parital merge of anything verifiable that's left out of the target. Note that a redirect allows future editors to see the history and dig out the chess diagrams, etc, so a deletion may not serve us well. —siro χ o 07:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: I personally would be happy with any of the options discussed here. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fairy chess piece or Omega Chess. Just not enough for independent notability here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect probably to fairy chess piece. The sources are adequate to show that this exists and it can and should be covered in an overview article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:12, 16 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. Star Mississippi 20:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rugg Williams[edit]

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this actor, even going back to coverage of In the Heat of the Night. (He was a recurring character, not "co-star" as stated in article.) The sources dumped in the reference section are bare mentions. Most of the article is unsourced, and has been tagged since 2012. Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still appears to be active [11], [12], not anything extensive about the person found. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to suggest a re-direct to Millennials TV series, but it's for an unrelated series from Argentina. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 2 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!} 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there seem to be paid (PR.com) sources discussing the subject, so be wary of non-independent sources. Since the TV series itself does not seem to be very notable, is is possible the subject isn't either. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:13, 10 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!} 07:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Clash[edit]

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

Another non-notable game show. According to TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs):

Only 32 hits on Google for "Beach Clash" + "David Hirsch", and the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows is the only one on GBooks. Newspapers.com only turned up TV Guide listings.

A ProQuest search for "Beach Clash" + Tv show returned only passing mentions, one-sentence announcements, and TV listings. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Schwartz, David; Ryan, Steve; Wostbrock, Fred (1995). "Beach Clash". The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows (2 ed.). New York: Facts on File. p. 12. ISBN 0-8160-3093-6. Retrieved 2023-07-03 – via Internet Archive.
  The book provides 237 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: ""Beach Clash" was a weekly one-hour competition, taped on the beach at Malibu, California that tested the skill, strength, and endurance of two teams of players. Each team was made up of four players, two contenders (one male and one female) and two "hardbodies," show regulars with names like "Sandy," "Breeze," "Ripper," and "Zuma." ... David Hirsch, who had replaced Dick Clark as host on "American Bandstand" and Alison Armitage of the TV series “Acapulco H.E.A.T." co-hosted, with Olympic Gold Medalist Sherri Howard serving as referee. The teams competed in ten events staged on the sand and in the water including "Hot Air Climb," "Bungee Basketball," "King of the Raft," "Beach Bout," and a "Crash and Burn" finale that included a variety of challenges such as a hill climb, a two-person kayak maneuvering a wave-runner around a course, a sprint and sand-crawl and a rope-swing into a pool."
2. Bark, Ed (1994-10-22). "'Trashsports' challenge your staying power". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.
  The review provides 204 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "About Beach Clash, for instance, starring muscle-headed "Hardbodies" Ripper, Sandy, Zuma and Breeze. ... Beach Clash (midnight Sundays, Channel 11) - The producers must have their heads in the sand. In other words, don't believe co-host Alison Armitage when she says ... Not to brag, but I do more amazing things with my body by rolling out of bed most days. These competitions, ranging from Hill Climb to Beach Bout, are strictly Dullsville, man. ... Beach Clash's other host, David Hirsch, plays the role of a geek seeking a physique. Ms. Armitage's principal contribution is to giggle at his attempts to be a hardbody in mind, if not body."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Jacobs, A.J. (1995-02-17). "'American Gladiators'". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.
    The article provides 61 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Beach Clash (syndicated). The Idea: Gladiators meets Baywatch. Sample Games: Hard-bodied contestants have a midsurf tug-of-war and drop from a parasail onto a floating target. The Getup: R-rated bikinis. Filler: Learn about contestants’ career goals while watching them frolic in slow-motion. Fun Bonus: Gratuitous shots of swimsuit-clad women in the shower. Bottom Line: This T&A fest would make Aaron Spelling blush."
  2. Tucker, Ken (1995-06-02). "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "After all, what are shows like American Gladiators and Beach Clash if not genially decadent versions of overbuffed Greek gods and goddesses bulging and sweating for the amusement of us rabble?"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Beach Clash to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review new sources located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's excellent sourcing. I agree it is sufficient to meet GNG . We can use this information to write a verifiable, neutral point of view article. —siro χ o 07:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's thorough and persuasive analysis of sources above. I have also reviewed the sources listed and agree with Cunard's conclusions. All requirements of the WP:GNG appear to be met. -- Visviva (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viva admin. Okoslavia (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okoslavia, you are very kind and I do appreciate it, but I must ask you not to call me that. Admin is not an honorific and simply indicates that the user is one of several hundred people who are entrusted with access to certain tools. My arguments on AFD, like any other user's, must rise or fall solely on their own merit -- irrespective of admin status, edit count, AFD stats, or anything else. -- Visviva (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visviva Ah, I was assuming it as Super vote. As admin can caste Super votes but probably not the case here. I do really respect your opinions on AFD as it is clearly based on reasons than emotions, unlike others. Will take care of your suggestions next time. Happy editing. Okoslavia (talk) 05:01, 11 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 Morigaon without prejudice to editors creating a new redirect at Ahaturi Natua Gaon. Redirects are not typically moved. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natuagaon[edit]

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

The article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) and the place itself lacks sufficient notability. SaurabhSaha 14:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Assam. SaurabhSaha 14:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and redirect to Morigaon. But rename the redirect "Ahaturi Natua Gaon"

The 2011 Indian census lists an "Ahaturi Natua Gaon" in the Marigaon subdistrict of the Morigaon district, population: 2951. There is no Natuagaon listed. (Note: the Indian Census page links to a massive Excel spreadsheet with statistics on the 29,395 villages in Assam province. The 48.4 MB file downloads very slowly after several tries)

Google Earth shows a Natuagaon LP School in "Ahaturi Natua Gaon". The Google Earth link shows "Ahaturi Natua Gaon" as just an area about 500m from the edge of Morigaon, the district HQ.

The Wikimapia location link that's the article's one reference leads to a location with no mention of "Natuagaon" that is not in the Morigaon district. (The article specifies "Natuagaon" that is in the Morigaon district.)

If "Ahaturi Natua Gaon" is the "Natuagaon" of this article, then as a census-listed village it might technically qualify as notable per WP:GEOLAND. GEOLAND counts a place as notable even if it doesn't meet WP:GNG if it meets this guidance:

Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.

However, I think it better to link to the nearby city, Morigaon unless someone turns up more coverage of this place. Perhaps note in the Morigaon article that "Ahaturi Natua Gaon" is a village on the outskirts.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can you simplify the ATD proposed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morigaon district. This could be a straight-up WP:V deletion, as none of the sources cited on either EN or HI actually mention any place in Assam by this name AFAICT, and no other valid sources come to hand. But redirection seems likely to better serve the user, and more importantly reduces the costs of a mistake in case we're completely wrong. I agree with A. B. that this is appears to be a misspelling or alternative spacing of Natua Gaon, as in Ahaturi Natua Gaon. It doesn't seem to be a very common variant. But given how Marigaon and Morigaon are written it's at least an understandable mistake that can support a redirect.
I'm sure an expert in the local governments of Assam could sort things out a little better here, and possibly even stub out a decent article on Morigaon's Marigaon circle and each of its 162 villages. But in the meantime we non-experts can only stumble along the best we can. In that spirit I have added a list of the five circles of Morigaon along with a brief mention of Ahaturi Natua Gaon village to the Morigaon district article. (I was going to provide a bit more demographic info but was surprised to find that the census website currently only gives population counts for the district and village levels and leaves the reader to fend for themselves to figure out the totals for the circles/subdistricts.) A systematic treatment of the divisions of Morigaon district is beyond my abilities, but that should at least be enough to allow for a cromulent redirect. -- Visviva (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying my proposal above -- in a nutshell:

redirect to Morigaon.
then move the redirect to "Ahaturi Natua Gaon"

That's the more common name and likely search target

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:35, 14 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. Consensus for notability, and sources linked show clearly meeting GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) AviationFreak💬 15:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South B[edit]

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

Article has been flagged as "local" for more than a decade with little improvement. I wasn't able to find anything substantive on Google, though the name may be complicating that search. I would normally suggest merging to Makadara, which is also barely a stub, but the material (e.g. list of hospitals) isn't cited anyway. Matt Deres (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. South B is a legally recognised populated place and so has a presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND. "South B" has two entries in the Kenyan census of 2019 Vol. II Distribution of Population by Administrative Units, page 239 (download at https://www.knbs.or.ke/publications/). One gives a population of 102,441; the other, a divison of this, gives a population of 34,216. Based on what's written, I believe this article is referring to the smaller place. The article states South B is an estate, when perhaps it should be described as a district or suburb of Nairobi. Not a good idea to merge to Makadara as that article appears to be about a nearby area. Rupples (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Geoland does not automatically make every un-notable but legally defined location notable. Per nominator. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modification to uncertain or weak delete. Sirfurboy and others have convinced me that maybe geoland does indeed automatically make every un-notable but legally defined location notable. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear from more editors who are familiar with WP:GEOLAND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a little reluctant to pander to what can be an overly broad understanding of GEOLAND, but there is a longstanding consensus that Wikipedia is a Gazetteer, per WP:GAZ, which is where the GEOLAND guidelines come from. So this location is deemed notable for a page as long as it is a legally recognised populated place, and perhaps even if it is just a named populated place. South B is recognised, and there is plenty of information about it. It gets mentioned frequently in the Kenya Gazette [13] and here it is in French language press: [14]. You can see the district bounds on Google Maps, and googling [15] confirms it is a recognised district. I found various references to it in terms of slum improvement too, e.g., [16]. Thus this clearly meets GEOLAND's low bar of recognition. Still, Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, and an often ignored part of GEOLAND is to consider whether this could be merged with a broader article. The appropriate article in this case would be Nairobi, but I think there is a good case that the Nairobi article is large enough and that district articles should thus be child pages. There may be a possibility of a district aggregation article that this could be merged with, but such an article does not exist. Thus, with no appropriate merge target, and also as per Rupples, this is a keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear from a couple web searches - once you get past all the real estate listings - that this is a notable Nairobi neighbourhood/place, even if it's not immediately obvious from the article. A novel, a parliamentary discussion all come up quite quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 11 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 KDE Education Project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KTouch[edit]

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

Most of the content is uncited and promotional. Has been tagged since 2014 without improvement. Cannot find much in the way of sourcing to establish notability. Greenman (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination and multiple issues TAG on the main page. Charsaddian (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDE Education Project. There are a few mentions here and there, but I don't think the overall depth is sufficient. Of course, a redirect would make it easier should that ever change. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 7 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!} 22:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KDE Education Project is a reasonable alternative to deletion, as this program clearly exists and has verifiable basic facts. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sikkim cricketers. Star Mississippi 20:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benoy Upreti[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC PARVAGE ^talk! 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. PARVAGE ^talk! 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if there were a List of Sikkim cricketers this would be an obvious redirect to there. There isn't a list right now - although it's not such a long list that it would be impossible to create one. I'll see if I can get around to it. If one isn't created then this will have to be a delete unless anyone can find sources on him, possibly not in English Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so I created the list - the red links just need checking at some point and the formatting sorted out, but we now have a list. So it's an obvious very partial merge with a note added to the player name and then a redirect as above Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sikkim cricketers Likely fails WP:GNG, however after BSTs great work, a suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sikkim. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sikkim cricketers.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:26, 11 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. Joyous! Noise! 22:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery Bob[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 10 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. Joyous! Noise! 22:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Qorig[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can only find weak coverage like OFC and VFF which are non-independent sources and lacking in depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 16 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 20:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Demara[edit]

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

I think this page is a work of self-promotion and publicity. There are no reliable sources about the subject Soulreaper (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources of any kind found, I'm not even sure she's who is described... There is nothing about her online. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook, a pinterest and an imdb profile. There is no sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Not a single mention when searching ProQuest. APK whisper in my ear 07:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. It looks like pure self-promo of a non-notable person with zero independent coverage from an WP:SPA. I'm surprised that it has lasted for so many years. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Worst Witch (1998 TV series). Joyous! Noise! 22:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdsister College[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, unsourced since 2006. PROD removed with no improvements to address concern DonaldD23 talk to me 21:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else comes up, a merge to The Worst Witch (1998 TV series) is obvious. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until and unless reliable sources can be found. This looks like the kind of mainstream TV series that should have generated reviews and mainstream coverage, but none are listed in the article and I didn't see any in a quick search. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:19, 16 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. Joyous! Noise! 21:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curotek[edit]

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

non notable local company. the cited references are trivial coverage on Curotek and fails NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing out there. They haven't even made it into the local newspaper, The Oregonian. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:34, 11 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. Joyous! Noise! 21:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey E. Barlough[edit]

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

BLP of a minor-league author whose main following seems to be on GoodReads. May be notable for his academic work; let's discuss. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Science. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep. The WP:NAUTHOR case actually looks reasonable here for the science fiction work. Without looking very hard, I found several reviews of his books over a long period on Publishers Weekly [17] and Kirkus Reviews [18]. Note that the Kirkus ones are not in (predate?) their pay-for-play "indie" program. I expect more reliable source reviews may exist for the older works. The WP:NPROF case from citations is also a possible pass -- he has a several highly cited papers as first or last author (in a field where that matters), in a medium citation field. The combination of the two weak keep cases starts to look stronger. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I haven't looked very deeply, but to add to what Ross Woodroofe said above, he's one of the authors on an updated version of an apparently widely used textbook ([19]), so notability seems likely enough that this is a "weak keep" instead of just a comment. -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, it appears Barlough may meet Wikipedia's academic notability guidelines with a number of articles by him in various journals plus him being the consulting editor for the UC Davis Book of Dogs: The Complete Medical Reference Guide for Dogs and Puppies. And Barlough definitely meets our WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines. There are 9 reviews of the author's works on Publishers Weekly, a couple of reviews in Kirkus, multiple reviews in Booklist and School Library Journal (accessible through the Wikipedia library), reviews in Asimov's Science Fiction and Black Gate and other genre magazines, multiple listings of this author's books on the annual Locus Magazine recommended reading list along with reviews in the magazine, and an entry for the author in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. And while the following action by me doesn't count toward proving notability, after learning about this author's Western Lights series I've added his books to my to-be-read list b/c they sound amazing!--SouthernNights (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the reviews listed above. WP:PROF#C1 for his work in veterinary medicine also looks plausible. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And yet this article still does not show SIGCOV. People who handwave sources in an AfD w/o making any effort to add them to the article should have their input ignored by the closer. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, the notability of a subject is independent of what condition the article itself is in. And it's not handwaving to do a search for reliable sources before offering an opinion on whether or not a subject is notable. As a final note, I usually do improve articles during AfD discussions but haven't had a chance to do so here. But even if no one adds a single one of the citations above to the article, that doesn't matter at all to determining if a subject is notable. And in this case Jeffrey E. Barlough does indeed meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:19, 16 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 20:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Portable system software compatibilities[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Seems to only be of use to those intentionally keeping their PSP on an older version (jailbreaking reasons I assume?) but even that has been rendered pointless long ago. The content is simply a curiosity without encyclopedic relevance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced listcruft, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTCHANGELOG, and likely other WP:NOT reasons. Woodroar (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unsourced, unencyclopedic list. The PlayStation Portable was discontinued in 2014. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTIINFO. Also unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:09, 15 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. Star Mississippi 20:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Callaway[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor of a suburban town. A BEFORE search brings up only local coverage, and we traditionally do not keep articles on local politicians just because they have received coverage in the local paper per WP:NOT - otherwise every mayor for every town would have an article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oregon. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hillsboro seems to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor would likely be keepable, but is in no sense large enough that its mayors would get any "inherent" notability freebies in the absence of any real substance or sourcing — the notability bar for a mayor is not "he exists", but requires the ability to write and source real, informative content about the political significance of his mayoralty: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and the referencing is parked on one primary source self-published by the city government, which isn't support for notability at all, and one single news article verifying his initial election to the mayoralty, which isn't enough all by itself to claim that he would pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 12 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly Bear Lake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated and kept in 2022 based on several "Keep" !votes citing WP:GEOLAND and WP:NEXIST. The article meets neither of these guidelines as NEXIST requires sources that, well, exist and GEOLAND requires sources with "verifiable information beyond simple statistics". The only non-map/database source is a climber's guide which mentions the lake in passing as a landmark on the way to a destination. This isn't SIGCOV and it tells us nothing about the lake itself aside from its relative location. Given the lack of additional coverage, deletion is appropriate in this case. –dlthewave ☎ 18:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 18:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEONATURAL - information beyond coordinates exists for this lake, including a couple scholarly surveys. It's not much, but it doesn't take much for articles like these to be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, could you please link a few of these sources so that we can assess? –dlthewave ☎ 20:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Lakes_of_Grand_Teton_National_Park#Grizzly_Bear_Lake. Sirfurboy did a nice job starting this article, and now this is the best place for coverage for these minor lakes per WP:NOPAGE regardless of if surveys of the park inlcuded this lake. Reywas92^Talk 23:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. The difference between redirect or merge is whether to copy across the small amount of information on this page not found in the target. The information is from a trail guide, and WP:NOTGUIDE applies. I don't think Wikipedia articles should be reproducing trail information, although linking to it is fine, perhaps in external links. However I would not object to a considered consensus to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. This is one of a series of small Teton lake AfDs that share the same issues. Others have already been closed as redirects.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:29, 14 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Lake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 18:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 18:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Qcne (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. I would also be fine with a merger but there is not much information currently worth merging. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. This is one of a series of small Teton lake AfDs that share the same issues. Others have already been closed as redirects.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:30, 14 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There were a few suggestions to merge to the target article. Any editor is welcome to check over the revision history if they feel that there is some abandoned material that needs to be incorporated into the target. Joyous! Noise! 19:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mica Lake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 18:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 18:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Qcne (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. This is one of a series of small Teton lake AfDs that share the same issues. Others have already been closed as redirects.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:30, 14 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rimrock Lake (Wyoming)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Qcne (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. I would also be fine with a merger but there is not much information in the article worth merging. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. This is one of a series of small Teton lake AfDs that share the same issues. Others have already been closed as redirects.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:30, 14 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Joyous! Noise! 19:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowdrift Lake (Wyoming)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Qcne (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. I am also fine with merging if any information in the article is thought to be worth keeping. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. This is one of a series of small Teton lake AfDs that share the same issues. Others have already been closed as redirects.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:30, 14 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. Joyous! Noise! 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Restaurant[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Local coverage only. Would need wider coverage to meet WP:AUD. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. IMO, topic is clearly notable and this is part of a continued effort by a few editors who are hounding me. Also, keep per talk page discussion (with User:Steven Walling), who previously removed tag added by The Banner. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NCORP under WP:AUD - appears to be a local restaurant that got no coverage at all outside its local area. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your assessment of the sources used in this version of the article, or all available coverage? I've added several book sources and will continue to expand as time allows. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has plenty of sources showing notability. No need for an Alexis Restaurant Massacree. Ann Teak (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep The subject was covered extensively by major news sources like The Oregonian for 30 years, and so there are plenty of exclusive sources that prove it is notable. This isn't just a random restaurant with only guidebooks or a few local reviews about it. Even the closure was covered by multiple sources as a notable event. 99% of restaurants don't get this kind of coverage and it obviously meets general notability and sourcing requirements. Steven Walling • talk 01:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most restuarants don't go in big for PR, but this restuarant does, which you seem to fail to recognise. scope_creep^Talk 12:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but no. The sources are highly reliable ones like the oldest newspaper on the West coast, and which have independent fact checking and editing. These are not press releases or paid shills. Steven Walling • talk 16:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does meet WP:AUD, which requires at least one non-local source. There are three by my count: one PNW source, one from California, and one published book. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUD. Even before Another Believer's expansion and addition of sources not located in Portland, it met WP:SIRS because The Oregonian is a statewide and regional source by circulation. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above and its well-sourced notability. You can get anything you want, at Alexis Restaurant. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above and its well-sourced notability. Okoslavia (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why all these nominations of subjects that pass the WP:GNG per ample sourcess? It wastes scarce community resources! gidonb (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of keep !votes with no examination of references. While a lot of folk state it passes WP:AUD, the lack of significance in the references absolutrly fails WP:SIRS, but no comment on that. Significance, not routine or generic is an important part of WP:SIRS in this instance. It is the intellectual depth of argument in the reference that prove WP:V, not the simplistic "oh I turned up, it must be notable so keep". I will go through them this weekend, the first block anyway. scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:scope_creep, your WP:AUD claim has been refuted by User:Orange Suede Sofa and others. Instead of prolonging this discusion, why don't you withdraw and check better next time?! Errors happen. As long as we learn from these, it's no biggie. gidonb (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference promoted by Orange Suede Sofa is similar to another ref from the same restuarant. While it reads like a good WP:SECONDARY source, the fact there is more than one from the same restuarant but a diifferent person/author and both read in a similar manner, makes me think it is an affiliate marketing skit. I have no faith in the statements about that "The Oregonian", a small regional newspaper has been "reporting" on it for 30 years+. The stuff its printing in a regular and timely basis is paid for PR, like the rest of it. It is only pizza restuarant after all not the pentagon, and the fact that their is a vast and varied collection of references, for what is a "pizza restuarant" is again, a clear indicate its all crap PR and affiliate marketing junk and not genuine references. Regarding the article, it WP:PROMO and reads like a brochure advertising article and it not even the most egregious. They are hundreds of them in that directory that read like adverts. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Comments like it is only pizza restuarant after all not the pentagon are not based in policy. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza restuarants don't have coverage unless they pay for it. It was trying to make a comparison and to be honest, I was not making the comment for yourself or anybody else that's commented so far. scope_creep^Talk 19:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you confused this article about a closed Greek restaurant with the AfD for Post Alley Pizza? Is there any evidence for your assertion that "Pizza restuarants {sp!} don't have coverage unless they pay for it"? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed. I will fix it tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Steven Walling, others. The subject of this article closed in 2016 which has reference coverage, given they are no longer in primary operation (there is a mention of secondary operation) the potential for promotion seems low. Not seeing the harm in keeping this article. - Indefensible (talk) 17:41, 15 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. Joyous! Noise! 18:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Bee[edit]

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

Upon closer inspection, the entire Wikipedia page is a promotional page, which is not allowed by Wikipedia itself under CSD G11. The biography refers to self-celebratory publications. The lady is not known in the country under the pseudonym Princess Bee, and the only article that mentions her is a self-published one. She has no publications, no recognitions, and there is no trace of her on the web except through paid advertising outlets.

(statement made at request of ~~anonymous~~ new user who came on #wikipedia-en-help, and who I guided through tagging the article for deletion; prima facie the sources don't look terribly impressive, but I'm not up for assessing them all to see if they're really that terrible.) DS (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 9 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 Thursday (album). Joyous! Noise! 18:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gone (The Weeknd song)[edit]

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

Not every song by this artist is notable. This one has never charted and there are no reviews of the song. Nothing found for this particular musical work. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thursday (album): Aside from the Highsnobiety list, sources on page are either passing mentions or blogs. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thursday (album): Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Nothing particularly notable about this song. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This song is not notable in the Weeknd's discography, it's just a track and lacks any chart performance and certification, along with it not being very successful on streaming services and not being talked about as much. I believe the user who made the article had also attempted to make a wiki page for every track off the Weeknd's Trilogy album, despite only about 4 tracks having possibility of being notable enough for their own article. (Wicked Games, The Morning, House of Balloons / Glass Table Girls, and The Zone.) Asknaffffwiki (talk) 12:56, 16 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 14:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Brownson Obi[edit]

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

Wife of a local politician, with no notability otherwise. Zero sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've had a search and the only references in the press to her are very minimal comments as the wife of her husband. Therefore, not notable. Qcne (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I couldn't find any sources establishing her notability. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. Longhornsg (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTINHERITED, noting that Peter Obi is not a “local politician”. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of political parties in Turkey. History is there if there's sourced material worth merging. There is no consensus to do so at the moment, but the redirect is a viable ATD Star Mississippi 14:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary People's Party (Turkey)[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation over a decade ago, with no real content. Unlikely to be relevant. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any sources at all in Turkish. Mccapra (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With a more precise search term, I could find some minor sourcing [20], [21], [22], as well as a few books. Given the era this party was active (it dissolved in 1999, while the WP article implies that it still exists), coverage is more likely to be offline. If heavily tweaked to filter out unrelated content, the Milliyet archive gives 13 articles where this party is in some way mentioned. I don't think it's a far stretch to think that this passes the GNG, given that it is one of the few parties ever that was openly associated with the PKK. ~Styyx^Talk? 07:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Styyxie (talk • contribs) [reply]
Comment well far-left Turkish parties are an alphabeti spaghetti of the same terms used in a different order over and over again, so that organisations with similar or even identical names at different times may or may not be the same organisation. Looking at the Milliyet archive a number of the stories date from 1992 and 1993, demonstrating that there was an organisation with this name in those years, but since the subject of this article wasn’t founded until 1994, they can’t be the same one. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in addition the three additional sources indicated by Styx are just passing mentions. Some of the book refs may be more substantal but only snippets are showing so I can’t tell. Anyway there’s no question the party existed but I’m still not seeing any in-depth coverage. Perhaps there’s a suitable redirect target such as List of political parties in Turkey where this party could be added. Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of political parties in Turkey (and redirect there) per all above. Aintabli (talk) 12:38, 1 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!} 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:24, 9 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. A clear case for WP:SNOW deletion. JBW (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THINGS TO CONSIDER BEFORE ENTERING INTO CONTRACT WITH FOREIGN SUPPLIERS/BUYERS[edit]

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

AFD as PROD is contested. Seems to be breaking WP:NOTGUIDE, not encyclopedic, and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, and Economics. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated for PROD deletion originally. The user has a few similar drafts here, here, and here. They are all failures of WP:NOTGUIDE. Qcne (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay. Why is the title in all caps? Regardless of those, it's not notable. This could be a small, few sentences in an article about contract law. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, reads like copyvio from somebody's PowerPoint... XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete: do we not have a basis in speedy deletion policies to delete such pages quicker? This user is able to create them quicker than we are able to delete them through AfD. –Vipz (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOTHOWTO. - Indefensible (talk) 19:19, 9 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 Chittagong Development Authority. Viable ATD. Star Mississippi 14:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CDA Public School and College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one primary source. Cannot find any significant coverage of this. Fails WP:SCH. Previous deletion discussion at: WP:Articles_for_deletion/CDA_Public_School_and_College. Qcne (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the page and references again and verify the article, and kindly remove it from deletion page.

Thank You. 1971asifintisar (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @1971asifintisar. I've re-checked the references and other than a single Wikipedia:Primary sources (raajrani.com) the rest have nothing to do with the school? I stand by my point that this article should be deleted as the school is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 more ref, feel free to chech. Thank you. 1971asifintisar (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Find nothing meeting the general notability guideline or the organization notability criteria. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 14:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Chittagong Development Authority or CDA, which owns and operates the school as a plausible search term and an alternate to deletion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deleted a month ago and new article doesn't have sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 15:33, 14 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 13:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coems[edit]

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

No indication of notability; sources are only TikTok, which, besides being user-generated and unreliable, sort of counts as a primary source. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero independent sources. We're not knowyourmeme. Qcne (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing for this trend found. Could be TOOSOON Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—complete lack of SIGCOV. Creator seems to be inexperienced, given the copyvio images. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be about a emoji and something on tik tok, I can't find sources about the meme. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (note):I have redirected Coems (Trend) to Coems, that is probably safe to delete in any case. As to this, I am not finding coverage outside of TikTok & Youtube to indicate this is notable. ASUKITE 16:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources cited, simply TicTok links that’s are primary and unreliable. Clearly fails WP:GNG. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:55, 12 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. Editors arguing for delete base their position on the failure to drum up enough available sources to meet GNG; editors arguing for keep point to SNGs and the possibility of print coverage existing. Since we've also established that such coverage would not be accessible/requestable from a typical library, it is essentially impossible to refute either side's analysis. As editors are relatively evenly divided and the discussion is already so long as to dissuade further participation, I'm closing it now as no consensus rather than relist. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WJOS-LD[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct LPTV station. No sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 14:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: according to WikiProject Television's guidelines regarding notability, "in general, any television station which produces original content and is licensed by a national government (e.g., the FCC in the United States) is presumed to be notable." WJOS produced original news, sports, religious, and music programming, as well as broadcasting programs from CBN. That would seem to establish a presumption of notability.

The other reasons provided for deletion in this nomination are both invalid: the nomination seems to have been prompted by the cancellation of the station's license earlier this year ("defunct station"), but Wikipedia's general notability guidelines explicitly state that notability is not temporary. The other reason, "no sources", displays an abject failure by the nominator to comply with WP:BEFORE, since the article already contained two valid sources for the article's contents: the FCC's station information page contained information about the station's status and history, while the station's web site (no longer active, but available through the Internet Archive) indicates what its programming consisted of.

These and other possible sources should have been investigated by the nominator prior to nominating the article for deletion; see WP:NEXIST. The lack of sources in an article is not an indication of non-notability; the question is whether sources exist, not whether they have been cited (here, they were actually present in the article, just not cited, which makes it even less acceptable that the nomination preceded without any attempt to determine whether sources existed).

Lastly, I note that while two of the sources I cited are not fully-independent of the subject, the station's web site is a valid indication of what its programming consisted of; primary sources may generally be cited for their own contents. Barnhart's obituary is presumptively valid as evidence of his death, as well as evidence that he was the station's owner, the date that it began broadcasting, and what its ostensible purpose was. There may also be independent sources for these things, but these will do for the purposes for which they're cited. P Aculeius (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the general notability guideline. Of the sources cited in the article:

[23] and [24] are the station's website - not an independent source.
[25] is the FCC listing for the station, it's little more than a database entry and isn't significant coverage. Documents linked to from the entry are written by the station and aren't independent.
[26] is an obituary of the owner of the station (at least it's claimed to be - it refers to him as starting "WJOS TV" but nowhere mentions WJOS-LD). Since it's apparently written by the subject's friends or family and published in a local news outlet it isn't a reliable source and it doesn't offer significant coverage of the station.

I couldn't find any better sources although there are other media outlets called "WJOS". The sourcing is also problematic in that articles are supposed to be based on third-party, reliable sources (WP:V), this article is not. WP:TVS/STDS is not a guideline, it's an information page published by a Wikiproject with no official standing, and it notes that While television channel and station articles, like all articles on Wikipedia, must meet the general notability guideline.... This 2021 RfC attempted to make something similar to WP:TVS/STDS into a notability guideline, the proposal was rejected. Hut 8.5 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unfamiliar with the guidelines for citing primary sources. Works (including websites) are valid sources for their own contents. A television station's program listings and statements regarding what it broadcasts are perfectly valid as sources for what the station broadcasts. That's all they're cited for—and therefore perfectly valid. Likewise, an obituary is a valid source for the fact that someone has died, or that he is the same person as the owner of the station, or that the person mentioned as a news presenter and subsequent owner of the station was his wife. It does not matter whether the newspaper is local or national, print or online, as long as it's in the business of publishing news. I don't know why you even bothered to type "it refers to him as starting "WJOS TV" but nowhere mentions WJOS-LD", as if any reasonable person would be in doubt as to whether these are the same station—and reviewing the FCC's license data clearly indicates that they are.

This is just a parade of excuses for getting rid of something because it's not important to you, all of them ignoring what Wikipedia policy actually says about sourcing. Nobody's claiming that this station was a vital part of the community or that the world won't go on without it—but the fact that it broadcast original and network programming to the area where it was located for around twenty years, give-or-take, makes it sufficiently notable for a short article in Wikipedia, identifying what the station was, where it was located, what it did, and when it was in operation. You can't systematically exclude each source demonstrating these things and then use the lack of sources to justify deleting it—that's not how AfD is supposed to work! P Aculeius (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline says that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is the main standard used for determining notability on Wikipedia (and the only standard if the topic doesn't have a more specific guideline, as is the case for broadcast outlets). The subject of this article fails this test - the sources cited are either not reliable, not independent of the subject, or don't present significant coverage of the subject. It's OK if the article cites sources which don't pass all three of these tests, but there does need to be a source which does for the subject to be notable. Yes, it's fine to cite the station website for what that station broadcasts, but the fact you can do that doesn't show it meets the general notability guideline, because it's not an independent source. It's also very much not OK to write an article primarily based on sources which aren't independent of the subject - see the verifiability policy. The obituary also fails this test - it doesn't show significant coverage of the subject (the TV station gets one sentence in it) and it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It certainly is not the case that all news outlets are reliable sources, and this obituary doesn't appear to have been written by the news site themselves anyway.

Again, the page WP:TVS/STDS is not accepted by the community as a notability standard, and the idea that every TV station which broadcasts original content must be notable has been explicitly rejected as a notability standard. It doesn't matter whether the subject passes. And as I've noted it insists that articles should meet the general notability guideline, which this one doesn't. Hut 8.5 07:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying here is that the page for the station doesn't have suitable sources? Mer764Wiki (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: What's your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvcg66b3r An LPTV is only ever going to get GNG coverage from within its area, for the most part. And WJOS-LD at least has it, evidence of local programming, and the things I generally look for when determining notability. The 2003 profile of Barnhart and the 2020 article on the station's sale are probably the best available material. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I spent a few hours scouring archived editions of the Pomeroy Sentinel and Sunday Times-Sentinel on Google Books, and managed to find some news stories documenting the station's origin and history from roughly 1997 to 2004. Google's archive only goes up to 2004, and the Sentinel no longer has its own web site (it's been amalgamated with several other local news sites) or the ability to search articles from several years ago (I'm not even sure when it first started posting online). But it's enough, IMO, to demonstrate independent and verifiable coverage of the station's establishment, owners, cable provider affiliation, programming, and participation in community events. It's not a gold mine—but it's as much as you could possibly expect to find of a local broadcast station in a very rural area. There is presumably more information out there—the stories only stop in 2004 because I don't have the ability to search for them any later than that. But I think this is enough to support the article's continued existence. P Aculeius (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NewsBank picks up the slack from there, though there really is just one SIGCOV piece. I have found and added as a reference an article dated September 1, 2020: "The end of an era - WJOS to be sold". It's a 400-word story and includes a previously undisclosed detail: Brenda negotiated with a Texas man to sell the station, which clearly never happened. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the citation templates. I tried to use them, but got errors because I didn't have a URL for the original stories on the newspaper's website—which no longer exists—and which may never have been posted online. All I could find was Google Books archived print copies, and I also got errors due to not having any indication of when they were archived. Plus the links were really long—I only figured out that they were twice as long due to the Google text search and highlighting of search terms after I'd already decided to give up on "cite news". Good thing an expert came along to clean up! Like I said, I don't usually work on things like TV stations—or religious topics, beyond Greek and Roman materials—I only came to this because I got an AfD alert for WikiProject West Virginia, and it seemed like a topic that shouldn't be deleted. I may not have any interest in the station, but if I run across references to it I'd probably want to be able to find out what it was. And that's the value of short articles on Wikipedia! Thanks again for your help. P Aculeius (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Hoo boy this is a something. I have worked on several LPTV projects over the years (W21BF is kind of similar), in addition to evaluating a lot of the HC2 stations for possible deletion, and small-town LPTVs like this can be very tough to write without the newspaper you need in the right years. If you don't have it, you are flying blind; there is not likely to be coverage frankly of any kind outside that newspaper. It may say something that I have only ever taken three LPTVs to DYK amid my hundreds of stations (I can even name them: K26AC, WVUP-CD, WYBU-CD), and each of those had a lot of coverage for different reasons. The coverage in The Daily Sentinel includes two bona fide SIGCOV pieces and a bunch of material that at least attests to local programming. This station was clearly something of a goner the moment Pete died; it never repacked (channel 45's frequency is no longer used by TV stations), though it did hold a permit to move to channel 34. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sammi Brie and others above. Andre🚐 03:13, 16 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 14:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cole (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, United Kingdom, and Cuba. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found some additional references by searching for the person's name, restricted to the country where he was posted. That is, I searched for "Tim Cole" site:cu. This is often the best way to find additional references about an ambassador or other diplomat. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of WP:REFBOMB with 11 citations for one sentence. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the added sources are not indepth and not WP:SIGCOV of Cole. [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31] are 1 line mentions of Cole. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided including those above do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Therefore subject fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources presented in the article don't pass WP:GNG since they're either not secondary or not independent, and are often indiscriminate references to the "British ambassador." SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 14 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 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiana Danial[edit]

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

Most of the coverage is based on primary sources: either her speaking as a subject-matter expert or giving interviews. In-depth secondary sources are lacking, and therefore, it fails to meet the WP:GNG criteria. I managed to find this article, but it's of low quality and only discusses her event. I also failed to find independent reviews of her so-called best-selling books. Mercenf (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crypto spam. Natural G11 - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been crypto expert on fox for years.. Page has been ref siphoned as part of vandalism. Has tagged team the entire set of pages in editing war.. Both are from upwork.. He nominated 2 pages and didnt even leave the required notifications on the talk pages. This is vandalism. 135.148.232.242 (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear notable based on criteria as laid out by nominator. Probably created by undeclared paid editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- seems to have been - ScienceAdvisor, banned as a sockpuppet - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment It is funny that you had to siphon off 10+ references from CNN, FOX, and other major sources before you decided to come in here and vote. You did no research and then come in and comment. She has been the crypto expert for fox news for 5 + years, nasdaq was link rot and you could have gone to web archive to replace it, and youtube videos from verified news accounts are viable references. This is nothing buy vandalism. References only need to be available and there are tons out there.. regardless if you are too lazy to source them. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 23:14, 11 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 Sin (video game). Sourcing is of insufficient depth to support a standalone article Star Mississippi 14:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elexis Sinclaire[edit]

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

I really was hoping this article would survive because from the heavy sourcing, one would assume there's meat there. However 99% of the sources all say the same thing: "she's sexy", with about that much depth. There is one character analysis in a scholarly paper and a book excerpt that examines her role as the protagonist' shadow in the first game, but those by themselves are not enough to carry the article. Other book mentions are trivial and list her alongside other characters in the vein of "Lara Croft led to this". In the end, it's another Niemti Special, complete with some sources that don't actually say what they're cited for, and magazines not fully cited so I can't verify their contents. Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no accounting for taste and WP:NOTPAPER. GNG is met with the sources in current article. It discusses in-depth, the character with regard to the real world, including impact on the reception of a game and followup media, sex appeal, sexualization, comparisons to other media, emotion/absence thereof, etc. This is all well sourced to secondary sources in the existing article, with an appropriately few (attributed) references to primary sources. FWIW, Literally dozens of sources are describing the characters body proportion in discussions of how that relates both to the real world and other media. —siro χ o 09:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are a slew of very brief statements that don't even constitute a single sentence, and several either cited badly or in questionable sources. Are you sure?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A single analysis isn't enough for the character to be notable. What the editor said above about the "dozens of sources" are only mostly from rankings/listicles (some are passing mentions) and isn't a WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the game. She's been talked about once in a scholarly effort. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was honestly shocked there was actually legitimate sourcing since this character is literally only remembered for having enormous breasts, so that should definitely be preserved. Dronebogus (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is adequate sourcing, in my opinion, to warrant the article's continued existence. There's the scholarly article, "Virtual Babes: gender, archetypes and computer games", which is definitely significant coverage by itself. Add one book excerpt, and together that makes the bare minimum for notability then. There's also enough aggregate non-trivial coverage, from various articles, listicles, list articles and anywhere in between. With regards to the WP:SIGCOV threshold, the guidelines do not say we must have an arbitrary number of articles or sources which specifically talk about the character in its entirety, as long as the coverage is non-trivial: there are cited sources which are single sentence blurbs or passing mentions about the character, and yet others which specifically highlight the character's importance as one of the series "main selling points", or whatever that means. Haleth (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What it means is “she has huge boobs and most gamers are (were?) straight men” Dronebogus (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's...actually pretty accurate. A lot of the statements are various degrees of that, or mentioning her alongside other characters briefly in the "post-Lara Croft sex sells" focus of female characters in video games. You end up with a weird series of repetition that ultimately just isn't saying much about the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There isn't WP:SIGCOV to support an encyclopedic article. I agree with those who say that repeat comments about sexy characters doesn't lead to a useful reception section. This has come up at other AFDs and I think it's worth summarizing in the WP:VG/MOS. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sin (video game) as non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This academic article has a SIGCOV coverage and analysis of her (page long). Coupled with all the other sources (granted, many are pretty weak), I think she is borderline notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker @Greenish Pickle! who mention lack of SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same source cited by the nominator's rationale. That along seems to be not enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:44, 16 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 close, as a bold move because it is unclear if the nomination is really about The Myth or about a vandalized version of the article that has since been reverted (see below). Also, the article does indeed have a source. User:QuickQuokka is welcome to re-nominate The Myth for deletion if that was the original intention, but a more descriptive rationale should be included‎. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The Myth (band)[edit]

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

Not notable, no sources, just seems like fancruft QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 08:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 08:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any independent third party sources at all, so fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Qcne (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment - In the last edit before the deletion nomination, someone vandalized the article and replaced the first paragraph with an attempted promotion for an unknown Nigerian rapper named Nbakstar. I recognized immediately that the vandalized version of the article had a lead paragraph that did not match the title of the article, but it appears that the nominator did not. I removed the vandalism, but I wonder if the nominator based this AfD on Nbakstar rather than the Maltese rock band called The Myth. The above voter also offered no information on who they investigated. I suggest straightening out whether this AfD is really about The Myth. Pinging: QuickQuokka, Qcne. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I only Googl'ed Nbakstar and Joel okolo festus which obviously led to no results. Sorry, should have been more on the ball.

The Myth has this eligible source and maybe this one but I think its a promo-piece. Struggling to find other sources, though... Qcne (talk) 14:35, 9 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!} 09:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Sarma[edit]

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

The page was apparently created by the subject (Dsarma23). It has been speedy-nominated once 10 years ago and PRODed 4 years ago. See: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=iRIZTYAAAAAJ&hl=en. I agree with the PROD nominator, who said "Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for academics, authors, or even simply the general notability guidelines." Chamaemelum (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is really annoying as the books he's authored do appear to be reasonably solid, and might have been just sufficient to pass NPROF in an article that doesn't look like someone's personal reminiscences. If this was written by the subject, then it perfectly expresses why it is a bad idea to write about oneself. Without prejudice to a future properly-written article, yes, it might be better to start over. If not deleted, the current article must be reduced to a couple of supported sentences, summarising his career and authorships, without dragging the reader through unreferenced reminiscences about teenage career-path decisions, and lists of every academic he's met. I wish that Move to LinkedIn were an outcome we could suggest. Elemimele (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN, article lacks any claim to notability, COI in creation, BLP (and/or more COI?) issues with anon later adding a huge chunk of unreferenced biographical details. Borderline A7, borderline G11. —siro χ o 09:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this needs TNT. I found this [32], the person helped create culturally appropriate greeting cards for the USA market. The article reads like a memoir. I can't find other sourcing about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 9 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. I just want to add to the enthusiastic page creator that editors here are saying WP:TOOSOON which doesn't mean NEVER, it just means NOTRIGHTNOW. If you need a copy of this article, contact me or go to WP:REFUND or talk with another administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the world (topography)[edit]

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

This page appears to be self-proclaimed OR: User Gigitoe says elsewhere (Reddit) that he made up the name. So this surely does not belong in WP, at least for a few years. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like a promotion of an external project [33]. Bazza (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bazza, the "external project" you linked (https://ototwmountains.com/) is actually the primary source of information regarding the OTOTW status of a mountain. It is a database of on-top-of-the-world mountains and their measurements. It's in a similar sense to how Peakbagger.com is the primary source of information for the elevation and prominence of many mountains on Wikipedia.

With all due respect, I have no interest in promoting a website that is merely an informational source without any monetization. I do, however, have interest in bringing to awareness an idea that has demonstrated public interest, as well as interest among individuals who are more specialized in the field of topography and topographic prominence.

I hope you can keep this in mind before continuing to push forth the deletion process. I believe we are on the same page regarding our need to keep good content on Wikipedia, it's just that we may have some differing opinions on the merits of this topic. I discuss the "reliable, published sources" of information regarding this topic in another comment below. Gigitoe (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I certainly understand where you're coming from. The concept of 'original research' as described on the Wikipedia page can indeed be a bit difficult to navigate, especially as it pertains to newer concepts. I can see how it might seem like this article falls into that category, given that I am the original author of the "on top of the world" concept, the initial draft of the article, and the Reddit post. It's important, though, to note that Wikipedia's definition of "original research" isn't meant to exclude creators of a concept from writing about it. Rather, it primarily addresses the issue of asserting scientific claims that are not backed up by reliable sources or substantiated evidence. On Wikipedia:No original research, OR is defined as "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." To prove that something is not OR, "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" is needed.

---

In this particular case, I'd like to reassure you that the concepts outlined in the article are well-founded and backed by rigorous research. A research paper that thoroughly explains these concepts is accessible at this link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01600.

---

This research paper is included in Peakbagger's glossary. Peakbagger is a trusted and frequently referenced source with hundreds of citations within the mountain-related pages on Wikipedia:

https://www.peakbagger.com/help/glossary.aspx.

---

Also worth noting is that the research paper has garnered media attention, with an article published in Mercury News, a credible news outlet: https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/06/21/what-california-cities-have-the-best-mountain-views-its-not-the-bay/.

---

There is also a website that provides information on whether a particular mountain is on top of the world. Since a previous user mentioned that they did not know where OTOTW listings were coming from, I made sure to include citations to every mountain with listed on-top-of-the-world status:

https://ototwmountains.com/

---

Finally, to address the "why" of this article, I decided to write it because there was good interest from not only the general public, but also the creators and pioneers of the widely-used topographic prominence metric on a prominence-related forum on Groups.io. The purpose of the Reddit post, as mentioned, was to assess public interest to see if it's noteworthy, not for use as a primary source. After posting a map of OTOTW mountains in California, many on Reddit have expressed interest in learning about such mountains in other parts of the world.

https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/14ec311/what_is_an_on_top_of_the_world_mountain_there_are/

---

I appreciate your concern and your commitment to maintaining the integrity and reliability of information. If there are any specific points in the article that you are unsure of, I would be more than happy to delve deeper into it. Our shared goal here is to ensure the accuracy and usefulness of the content, and your input is important for achieving that. Gigitoe (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Authors can write about their own subject, but if their work isn't being written-about in detail by other, unconnected reliable sources, then the work isn't yet ready for Wikipedia. It's probably WP:TOOSOON. The current sources in the article don't demonstrate that it's notable yet, and the idea must be promoted elsewhere before coming here. Elemimele (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Maybe this will be considered a significant measure one day, but it is not now. The page creator cites his own research paper (primary source, so we don't count that for notability), a single newspaper article from a couple of weeks ago (appears to fail regarding independence, and reliability in this context would be highly suspect), and a website. The website was created 2 days ago, by a private individual, apparently in California. That does not appear to be secondary, nor independent, nor reliable). So we are left with nothing at all. As I say, it may become significant one day, but policy is that Wikipedia is a lagging measure of notability. It is not here to promote the measure. So a very clear delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A USA-centred article by someone who thinks the world consists of the Himalayas and California. No mention of Aconcagua (much higher than anything in California), for example, or any other of the peaks !n the Andes, apart from Chimborazo. No mention even of Denali (or McKinley). Note that Mount Whitney is not even the highest mountain in the USA, let alone the Americas. Nonetheless, there is an (almost illegible) map of peaks in California. Athel cb (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the deletion policy due to the concept being WP:TOOSOON, I hope you don't mean that this article is written by someone who "thinks the world consists of the Himalayas and California" in the literal sense. The list of 7000m+ OTOTW peaks includes mountains not just in the Himalaya, but also in the Karakoram, Tian Shan, Transhimalaya, Pamir Mountains, Hengduan Mountains, and Kunlun Mountains. The reason is that the highest mountains in the world are found in Asia. If it's a list of OTOTW mountains ranked by topographic prominence, then we will see the representation of peaks in other parts of the world, such as Aconcagua, Kilimanjaro, Denali, etc. All of the Seven Summits are OTOTW by a long shot.

The California map is only for the sake of providing a regional example. But there's plenty of OTOTW mountains found around the world. I thought it'd be better to include a example of one particular region rather than none at all. Gigitoe (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This self promotional article. It has no sources that meet WP:GNG. The author is also linkspamming their associated website across hundreds of articles. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi MrOllie, I included the links to the website only after a user mentioned the desire to see sources for the OTOTW status for different mountains, so I think it's important to pause and consider this context before accusing me of "linkspamming". As I mentioned in another comment, the website is a database of the OTOTW status of various mountains worldwide. It's similar to listsofjohn.com and Peakbagger.com, the latter of which is one of the most frequently-cited websites in the mountaineering parlance on Wikipedia. The research paper for this concept (https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01600) is even mentioned in the glossary page of Peakbagger.com under the "Jut" section.

---

I don't think it's fair to simply label this as self-promotional, considering that at the very core, this is a means of measuring a mountain: a scientific idea, not a personal page or promotion of a sellable product. You can completely detach my name and livelihood from the idea, and the idea still stands: a mountain is OTOTW if it matches a certain mathematical criteria. I hope we can, at the very least, focus on the scientific arguments that are being advanced, and point to falsifiable statements in the research paper and article before making such generalized and sweeping claims. If I'm simply spreading false information and asking people to buy my product, by all means, delete everything and ban my account. But unlike the way you made it sound in your comments, that's not what I'm doing; things are much more subtle than that.

---

It takes lots of effort and work to create new knowledge, and very little to tear it down. I hope that you can, at the very least, read the research paper and demonstrate your understanding of the pros and limitations of the concept, before being so intent on removing this work. Sometimes, it may be good to give the benefit of the doubt, especially in areas that you may not the domain expert in. Gigitoe (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your self published site and arxiv preprint aren't a usable source for anything on Wikipedia. I understand that someone asked you for a source, but to then add your own website to more than a hundred articles in response absolutely was spamming as we define it here. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a peakbagger myself, this is an interesting concept that I'm going to be looking further into. I hope it takes off. But until we get some reliable sources that are independent of the author, this is just WP:TOOSOON. -- Scott Burley (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I appreciate the energy of Gigitoe, I'm not seeing a WP:RS source. This is WP:TOOSOON. I'm also concerned that this might be self promotion by a user. In reviewing some of the sources mentioned by Gigitoe, https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01600 is a submitted paper which has very low weight. The Mercury News article is interesting and congratulations are due, but one article in a paper is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I don't see top of the world mentioned on the peakbagger glossary. The https://ototwmountains.com/ site is a user created site and not WP:RS. Personally, I feel like the designation adds clutter and is somewhat subjective, though others may disagree. If this article is deleted, my hope is that Gigitoe will undo his many edits to various mountains and stay with Wikipedia and contribute in a meaningful way. Cxbrx (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this hasn't caught on as an idea. I can't find sourcing for it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original author here - you all have brought forth a good reason for deletion, namely that the website is WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia standards. Just wanted to clarify that I included links to the info database (https://ototwmountains.com/) only after a user mentioned wanting to see sources for these OTOTW claims, not for the purposes of spamming the website. Also, to respond to the point of Cxbrx, in the Peakbagger glossary, the paper is linked in "Jut" section under "this article"; OTOTW mountains is one of four main ideas listed in the paper. My apologies for the ruckus - should have been more thoughtful and more aware of Wikipedia guidelines before making such sweeping changes. I'll be deleting my edits to all other mountain pages. Gigitoe (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gigitoe, you are right, I was wrong, the link is there, I missed it, I search for "top" hoping to find "top of the world".Cxbrx (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One option would be to include the info as a subsection of the existing Wikipedia page on topographic prominence. Pixpixpix (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not without some kind of source from a proper publisher, and we don't have that here. MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This work should not be included in the Topographic prominence page yet. The paper was submitted in 8/2022. It is unclear to me to which journal it was submitted. The Merc article is a single article, it does not mention "top of the world," instead it is about a classification system that is likely related to top of the world. Before adding this to Topographic prominence, I'd prefer to see an article in a peer-reviewed journal as opposed to references to websites including peakbagger. Cxbrx (talk) 20:19, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ati Kepo[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is despite scoring five international goals, albeit for the Papua New Guinea national football team. JTtheOG (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of material at the PNG Post-Courier or The National; all someone needs to do is extract a few good articles.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Source breakdown: 1 mention, 1 mention, 1 mention, 2 mentions, 1 mention, 2 mentions, 2 mentions. No SIGCOV. The closest thing to it would be the two sources already in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per IdiotSavant. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with JTtheOG that the above sources are nowhere close to SIGCOV. Athletes are required to have a source of SIGCOV cited in their articles, that has not been established here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this player seems to have a slightly higher profile than many deleted here. But he's still not cutting it as far as the notability requirements. I agree the sources we have are too brief. If anyone finds anything more substantial, ping me and I'll consider changing my !vote. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage that passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources constitute significant coverage? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, may help in this case? —siro χ o 09:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantially per siroxo and IdiotSavant. Policy-based rationale follows.
First, the applicable rules: WP:NBIO provides that People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, and that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. In turn, WP:SIGCOV states that significant coverage addresses the topic sufficiently directly and in sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content. It also clarifies that the article subject does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Second, the relevant sources: Among sources cited here and in the article, we have some articles for which Ati Kepo makes up 1/4 to 1/2 of the article topic, and which contain substantial biographical information about him in particular: [34], [35], [36]. As the biographical content can be extracted without any hint of original research, these are squarely within both the letter and the spirit of SIGCOV. We also have some articles in which Kepo makes up 1/4-1/2 of the article topic but which do not contain much biographical information: e.g. [37], [38]. We also have at least two RS articles in which Ati Kepo is the main topic, but with little biographical information: [39], [40]. These latter sources also appear to be plainly within the letter of WP:SIGCOV, although perhaps not within its spirit (since they furnish little in the way of article material). (These latter articles also go to show that Kepo is "notable" in the colloquial sense of "important", which is not relevant under policy but for some reason has often proven relevant to AFD outcomes.)
Conclusion: Even applying the rules with the greatest rigidity (which is rarely required), this article still qualifies under NBIO because the article subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. -- Visviva (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viva admin. Okoslavia (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable in PNG at least. Dont see a big issue here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:49, 11 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!} 04:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Little[edit]

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

Most of this article is based on one restaurant review from Sydney Morning Herald. I'm not sure if Broadsheet is a reliable source but it's another review. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Sidney Morning Herald definitely meets WP:PRODUCTREV and WP:SIRS, but the Broadsheet does not meet WP:SIRS. I found another review via Urban List which also does not seem to meet WP:PRODUCTREV. There's a potential at Herald Sun but I'm unable to actually read the review. —siro χ o 08:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 2 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!} 05:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Firstly, WP:PRODUCTREV is not met. WP:PRODUCTREV states "the reviews must be published outside of purely local ... interest publications", and then links to WP:AUD, which states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". The Sydney Morning Herald is a generally local newspaper, and so is the Herald Sun, which focuses on Melbourne. While both newspapers are located in different cities (Pretty Little is located in Victoria), I'm not convinced that reviewers for two local newspapers publishing non-SIGCOV articles on restaurants in different cities is enough. In addition, most of the material in the sources isn't SIGCOV and, thus, I don't believe the restaurant passes the GNG. This is reflected in the article, which is composed mostly of "description" and "reception". The "description" section is unnecessarily detailed and seems entirely trivial. The "reception" section is also quite trivial; actual good information, such as history, is limited. And the restaurant opened fairly recently, in 2019, so there's no historical value in this article either. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has been relisted and this is enough of an Indicator to me that it isn't beyond a reasonable doubt to be nominated for deletion. That is my requirement for voting delete. It must be an obvious vote, not a debatable one. Huggums537 (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was relisted because no one had cast a !vote. If you support keep you must address how a notability guideline is met, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, run-of-the-mill restaurant with no awards, no notable achievements. WWGB (talk) 14:24, 12 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 consensus is to Keep this article but the nominator has taken issue with the sources presented. However, there is no support for deleting this article so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hundred Bucks[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Was made by an editor blocked for sockpuppeting. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM as it has not received 2 reviews from major publications considered reliable by our standards. Jupitus Smart 03:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Jupitus Smart 03:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a rather negative review (Times of India) currently linked on the page, and this one, also negative.MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 08:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added the sources from TOI and BOI. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we consider the Times of India article, the Filminformation source is just a blog and not considered reliable according to our standards WP:ICTFSOURCES. It would therefore not pass the standard for 2 reviews from reliable sources. The BOI page is just a random information page with some information without any basis - like the fact that it grossed about $1200 USD over its entire run. Jupitus Smart 13:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a better assessment of Film Information, see their page bottom About Us or read this, or Komal Nahta. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 14:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Komal Nahta owning Filminformation does not impart any automatic notability to the website as notability is not inherited. And looking at the review's quality it appears to not have been written by Komal Nahta (it just mentions Filminformation as the author) compared to other articles like this - [41] which explicitly mentions him as the author. Also I don't think UNBumf which you quote in Komal's defence is also just a blog and not in our list of reliable sources. Jupitus Smart 15:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Komal Nahta was not the author, he is the publisher of what a few lines above you called a ’blog’. Komal Nahta does not need anyone’s defence, it was just for information. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 15:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is Komal Nahta is not so big a deal that an website he publishes would be deemed noteworthy. India's best critics can be seen here National Film Award for Best Film Critic - which includes the likes of Namrata Joshi and Baradwaj Rangan. A look at the quality of the review would burnish why it is no better than an ordinary blog. Best. Jupitus Smart 17:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maheshworld which concerns this. The writing is probably done by a paid syndicate as the original author of the article was also a sockpuppet Jupitus Smart 15:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever the page creator might be, this film does seem notable to me and I think it meets criteria for notabiltiy. And I will leave it at that, if I may, thank you. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 15:56, 2 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!} 05:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this review [42] in Hindi(?). Gtranslate shows it's a small article with some critical comment. Seems fine. The source isn't listed in our reliable source list. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 9 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 Characters of The Legend of Zelda. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revali[edit]

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

Just like Daruk, which is already nominated for deletion, this character very likely fails GNG. All sources in the Reception section are either Velnet lists (ignored for notability discussions, even more so because they are lists) or discussing wanting the Champions (note the plural) in Smash Ultimate. Outside of the reception section, 7 of the articles sources are primary, most from the same book, and yet even more Velnet, and what isn't Velnet doesn't talk about Revali enough to warrant anything outside of a section in Characters of The Legend of Zelda. This article should be merged into it. Mipha and Urbosa might have potential, though, especially Urbosa. NegativeMP1 (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda. No indication of standalone notability for this character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda. Unfortunately, I don't think he has enough coverage to warrant a page, it's really just listicle things and trivial mentions + the creating a champion primary source. ULPS (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Like Daruk, Revali simply isn't that notable, at least according to the article and my research. I agree with the assessment on Urbosa, and am unsure about Mipha. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Westby[edit]

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

Six appearances for the Belize national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. JTtheOG (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Best source I can find it this. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:43, 9 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!} 04:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kadiska[edit]

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

Coverage is routine funding announcements and PR items, I find nothing about them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NCORP. Routine coverage, PR, etc. —siro χ o 06:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources are there... The article in CIO review offers a complete analysis of the company history and achievements. The notability and credibility are also confirmed by the awards won!Art&football (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements or interviews with executives and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. The CIO article mentioned above by Art&football is based entirely on an interview with the CEO and fails ORGIND and I am unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:29, 14 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!} 04:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Las Vegas (dancer)[edit]

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

Overly wordy article for what appears to be a very regional phenomenon. Only RS is the Oregonian article, cited a half-dozen times. Rest are trivial mentions or non RS. Nothing found for this individual, only for the phase. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Dance. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and South Dakota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citations already in the article are from such reliable sources as Willamette Week, Oregon Public Broadcasting, Portland Mercury, Hyperallergic, Portland Monthly, The Oregonian, Oregon Arts Watch, and The Daily Beast (I know in some cases this last one may not be a reliable source, but since here it's a profile of the subject I accept it as proof of notability). In addition, there's also in-depth coverage of the subject on KGW (link), WNYC (link), The Portland State Vanguard (link), Here Magazine (link), The Rumpus (link), Bust Magazine (link) Brunch Magazine (link) and other places. And while Liv Osthus may indeed be a regional phenomenon, all of those sources are detailed examinations of her work, art and life, not trivial mentions. There's also a well-received documentary about her. Yes, the article needs works, including cleaning up the citations. However that's not a reason to delete. Per WP:ARTIST, this subject's work has "won significant critical attention" and so meets our notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SouthernNights. The page needs some heavy editing, but the subject is notable. pburka (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. --John B123 (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable. Ha enough and also prominent sources Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per SouthernNights. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 15 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!} 03:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Lalita[edit]

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

Non-notable musical performer. Article is rife with puffy language. There are no sources that mention her, that aren't PR or paid pieces. Gsearch is straight to social media. This is about all there is for coverage [43]. Perhaps TOOSOON for this artist. Oaktree b (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Oaktree b (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above, no significant coverage found. Qcne (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 11 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 Dalek. Star Mississippi 01:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of Skaro[edit]

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

As written, this is just a list of non-notable characters that does not go beyond a plot summary - there is nothing to suggest this grouping meets WP:GNG. My BEFORE did not find anything that goes beyond a plot summary, so the best WP:SOFTFDEL alternative I can think of would be to redirect this to Dalek. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Dalek. Standard practice at this point. Dronebogus (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a full and well written page detailing a Doctor Who villain. Nothing unusual or wrong with it, and from the size and care put into it fellow Wikipedians spent a great deal of time researching and preparing the page. Leaving such pages in place seems the way to go, as Wikipedia justification of removal doesn't seem to apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOOKSGOOD, WP:PLEASEDONT, WP:NOTTVTROPES, NOTTARDISDATACORE, and complete-lack-of-rationale all apply to your argument. Dronebogus (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That last one? Just... tacky. Writing an essay just for a series of AfDs that are already being substantially closed as merge or redirect? We should be better than that. Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People are still voting “keep” for them based on really bad rationales, so I felt like the obvious needed to be restated. Dronebogus (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "cute", not tacky... :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see any merit to a merge. This article is entirely a long, rambling in-universe plot summary. Please contrast it with, for example, Davros, which is only partly in-universe, but also balances its plot descriptions with discussion of the character's real-world development, actors, and impact on society. I don't dispute that the Cult of Skaro is well-written, but it's indistinguishable from well-written fan-cruft on a fan-cruft site. We should aspire to Davros-like articles, and avoid becoming just another sci-fi fan-site. The alternatives are turn this into an encyclopaedia article by adding some out-of-universe stuff, or get rid of it. Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dalek. It is complete FANDOM content that lacks any notability. It is briefly mentioned in the Dalek article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's not 2006 any more. The TARDIS Wiki can deal with this better than we can. Sceptre (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dalek - The current article is made up entirely of in-universe plot summaries attributed only to primary sources or unreliable sources such as Reddit threads. Searches do not turn up much in the way of genuine coverage of the group outside of plot summaries. Its mentioned here and there in discussions of the Daleks as a whole, but there's not really any significant coverage on this sub-group in particular. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 10:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dalek per Zxcvbnm, Sceptre and Elemimele, whose comments align perfectly with my own views. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dalek per Dronebogus. There just isn't enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Fort Worth shooting[edit]

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

Commonplace shooting in the United States. Article has not progressed from a stub. The content can easily be accommodated in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. WWGB (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Texas. WWGB (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2023. The statistics and location are already at that target. Joyous! Noise! 18:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. It's no longer "Was there a mass shooting in the US today?", but rather how many. Very depressing. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why is one mass shooting more notable than another? Mass shootings get worldwide news coverage. Even this one. Inexpiable (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The US had 695 mass shootings in 2022. If we covered every one, this would become Shootipedia. We generally write up those with higher death tolls. WWGB (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. We have too many mass shooting articles as it is. Corgi Stays (talk) 05:26, 14 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 03:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unused[edit]

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

Non-notable web-series. Did not receive any reviews from major publications. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 02:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Jupitus Smart 02:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Various reviews exist, for example here, or here at least.MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 08:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to find any reviews that meet WP:ICTFSOURCES —siro χ o 08:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not accept reviews from random blog pages. A list of publications considered reliable according to our standards are mentioned by an editor above. Jupitus Smart 13:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maheshworld which concerns this. Socking by a probable paid syndicate. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination, only 2 reliable sources listed per WP:ICTFSOURCES with no reviews. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 11:03, 7 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!} 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These might be personal nitpicks, but I feel like they prove that nobody knows anything about this show:
1. This is an article about a television series... using the film template. Already a bad start.
2. The article title isn't even capitalized correctly! In fact, title capitalization is extremely inconsistent through the article.

—theMainLogan (t•c) 03:56, 12 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. This is a close call, but essentially all of the views to keep have been adequately refuted after several relists, while the arguments to delete, explaining why there is an insufficient amount of sourcing to write a fully-fledged article, have held their ground. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francesc Repiso[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Andorra. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm seeing nothing beyond casual mentions in routine sports coverage. Ravenswing 20:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andorra at the 2004 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He also got some notability being a contestant on Spain's version of Masterchef (yes, same guy) - which there is seemingly more coverage of than his actual sporting exploits, as minor celebrities and reality shows tend to drum up. There's plenty other reports on that. Ones like this at least have some detail on his life and sports, even if only written because he was on Masterchef. Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I disagree with the respondent above me that participatng in Masterchef makes one notable, the coverage adds up to a notable bottomline. gidonb (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Kingsif and Gidonb's logic. Over the two fields, I think he achieves notability. Red Fiona (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough Bearas (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and Ravenswing. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Ravenswing, I also don't think the subject's participation in Masterchef meets WP:ENT guideline. Karnataka (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that his appearance on Masterchef generated SIGCOV in reliable sources, some of which have been added to the article - which someone looking at exclusively sports news wouldn't find. Not that being a reality show participant is basis to pass GNG. Kingsif (talk) 21:19, 1 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!} 19:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough notable for keep the page. Enrico Manni (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — Enrico Manni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This isn't a good rationale. What is notable? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a cross-wiki spam account that has been voting on random AFD's (among other things) to attempt to gain legitimacy. Graham87 05:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The piece on El Periòdic d'Andorra is an interview and thus a primary source, and those on DiariAndorra.ad are too brief to qualify as significant. The latter were also published too close in time to each other, so the coverage in them isn't WP:SUSTAINED. Neither his sports career nor his Masterchef appearance have generated enough coverage to establish notability. Avilich (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note, this is now extended confirmed to stop the utter nonsense. If a legit autoconfirmed account needs to participate, please use the Talk page. Star Mississippi 11:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - famous in Andorra -- a literal big shot. Unfortunately, not notable here per lack of refs meeting WP:GNG or trap-shooting performance/ranking meeting WP:NSPORT and WP:NOLYMPICS

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Few reasons. Multiple sources combined put us in the ballpark of BIO/GNG. Also, consider the language divide. And most importantly, a 2004-era Olympian almost certainly has some analog reporting we're not finding right now which would comfortably reinforce the existing GNG entries. —siro χ o 04:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there's no article in either the Catalan or Spanish Wikipedias. That's not definitive re: notability but it is telling. A search on the Catalan Wikipedia for Francesc Repiso comes up empty even for mentions in other articles. On the Spanish Wikipedia, he's listed in a table entry of participants at es:MasterChef (programa de televisión español)#Undécima edición (2023). That's also true of our own article: MasterChef (Spanish TV series)#Eleventh season (2023)

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also known as Francisco Repiso (unfortunately?), I thought I'd mentioned that but apparently not. Could possibly search for that. Kingsif (talk) 12:57, 13 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. There have been no further comments since the last relist, indicating the discussion has run out of steam. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaire national football team results (unofficial matches)[edit]

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

Basically, a list of friendly matches between neighbouring very small islands (Bonaire has some 20000 inhabitants), not between nations but between parts of the same nation. No evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Caribbean. Fram (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia editors maintain a large sourced collection of national team match results from hundreds of countries around the globe, including official and unofficial matches, with an aim for completeness. There is nothing special about this one aside from the colonization factor raised in the nom.
Deleting a part of it would be counterproductive, see WP:SSE and Gibraltar national football team results (unofficial matches), Greenland national football team results (unofficial matches), Hong Kong national football team results (unofficial matches), Kosovo national football team results (unofficial matches), etc —siroχo 08:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The "aim for completeness" in sports articles has been used as an excuse for many articles which are no longer automatically accepted, be it Olympians, cricket players, international footballers, ... and all discussions about these topics have indicated that completeness is not a reason to create or keep articles if the subject isn't notable. Perhaps these other articles need deletion as well, perhaps they are notable, I haven't checked them as their status is not relevant for this AfD. Fram (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It very well could be that none of these articles about unofficial matches for small national team need to exist, but that discussion is indeed relevant to this AfD. There's a risk of reinforcing systemic bias in Wikipedia by picking and choosing which of this type of article to delete. If we delete piecemeal without considering the ramifications across the encyclopedia, it also becomes harder for editors who work on such articles to improve the way the information is organized. For example it may be appropriate to merge this into Bonaire national football team results. But, then should all parallel articles be merged in a similar way? If not, what would be the criteria? It's difficult to know for those of us who don't work on them.
  
  Also, the comparison to athlete BLP articles doesn't quite apply regarding OSE, because there are indeed a relatively limited number of national teams as compared to individual athletes.
  
  It may be appropriate to raise the general concern about such articles with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. —siro χ o 09:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to repost the answer I gave to user Fran on my page:

"Hello there.

The article was created separately precisely because it includes matches while Bonaire was not yet a member of CONCACAF, so they are not "Full A" matches.

The case is basically the same with Kosovo and Gibraltar, which, like Bonaire, only joined into a confederation in the past decade, and before completing membership, there was only playing against smaller islands and clubs."

What motivated me to create this page in question is the lapse of matches that exists since Bonaire established its national team until it was accepted as a member of CONCACAF. The other matches (mostly against Aruba and Curaçao) have been added as additional information was available on the World Football Elo Ratings. I undestand the WP:SSE politcs, but because it is one of the last established national teams (created in the last decade), I thought it was pertinent. Thank you all for your attention and good contributions. Svartner (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTSTATS/NOTDIRECTORY. No, we don't need a history of every unofficial game played between minor islands. Giant Snowman 10:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These matches weren’t random friendlies between islands. A lot of them were selection matches for the National team. Bonaire usually finished last in these tournaments. As a result there was only one Bonaire player in the National team most of the time. [44] Cattivi (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This list seems to be incomplete. 2 More in 1978 [45] Qualification for Medellín 1978. 1978 Central American and Caribbean Games is also missing several other sports. Cattivi (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with GS plus most of that article is uncited. Closer should consider merging with Bonaire national football team results as other similar articles include matches from before their continental or FIFA affiliation eg- American Samoa national football team results. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Svartner DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bonaire national football team results. There is some usable information here but this doesn't need its own article. It doesn't meet GNG on its own and the article contents can serve their purpose elsewhere. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of sources is needed. In particular, claims of unreferenced and potentially unverifiable information need to be addressed, as the keep argument at this point is that this and other similar article comprise a useful primary source by providing a complete account of the sport.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:18, 9 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!} 06:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue Bubblebath 5[edit]

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

Was PRODDED by User:Donaldd23 with the rationale "Appears to fail WP:NALBUM", and redirected to another article by Explicit after the PROD expired. However an IP restored the content, claiming that WP:NALBUM doesn't apply to EPs (it does), and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF. So now we have to come here. This is separate from the "Analogue Bubblebath IV" AfD, but the same sequence of events has brought it here. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NALBUM, and the rationale the IP used "Also if you delete this article there has to be consistency with other EP/single articles, inc others by Aphex Twin." is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and irrelevant. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard_D._James_discography#Extended_plays_2 as WP:ATD-R. I found no reviews in a before to satisfy GNG. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I also found some coverage of the time the album went up on eBay, talking about its rare status ([46] [47] [48]; last two mostly identical), so I'm now inclined to weak keep. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Another similar reference to what Miraclepine found [49], and a passing reference [50]. Both of those are in major publications. Since WP:NALBUM references the GNG, and only mentions excluding things like press releases etc, this puts me in the weak keep camp as well. —siro χ o 09:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: I can't locate any mention of the album or the band in that Vice link. Don't know if it's worth the trouble to fix, since you mention it only as a passing mention, but I know that Vice URLs can be a bit slippery, so I'm wondering if perhaps you meant to link something else. -- Visviva (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:Miraclepine, if you have changed the outcome you seek, please cross out the one that no longer reflects your opinion so things are absolutely clear to the next admin who reviews this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above, otherwise redirect to discography per nom. Policy-based rationale follows.
First, the applicable rules: Point 1 of WP:NALBUM affords a presumption of notability if The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. The guideline further clarifies that This criterion includes published works in all forms excepting only school newspapers and press releases. Confusingly, NALBUM seems be operating from a different understanding of what notability is than WP:N, as it goes on to state that Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article (my emphasis). Thinking too hard about the intended relationship between these guidelines is giving me a headache, so I'll just leave it there.
In addition, WP:EDITCONSENSUS reminds us that Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.
Next, the sources: The sources actually cited/linked in the article are either UGC or self-published. But the above-cited sources seem much better: [51], [52] and [53] are three articles that appear to be entirely about the article subject and to be published in independent reliable sources. In addition, this piece is not wholly about the article subject but has a solid paragraph of coverage, which clears the "nontrivial" bar of NALBUM and the GNG. In sum, the article subject seems to solidly meet the requirements of NALBUM point 1.
Conclusion: The article should probably be kept, under both NALBUM and the GNG, because the EP has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works in what appear to be reliable independent sources. However, NALBUM also calls on us to think hard about whether we really have enough material to support a substantial article here. In this respect I would lean toward merging/redirection, as the total sum of information that can be harvested from these sources is not all that large. But I think there is an overriding concern here. Dismissing the anon's argument as WP:OTHERSTUFF misses the mark. As EDITCONSENSUS recognizes, our best guide to the consensus forged over time among knowledgeable editors as to how coverage in this area should be organized is how editors have actually organized that coverage. The existence of similar articles might reasonably be discounted when considering whether to delete or keep, but is worthy of considerable weight when considering whether to keep or merge/redirect. Therefore I believe a keep is preferable to a redirect here. -- Visviva (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viva admin. Okoslavia (talk) 03:41, 11 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!} 01:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Aarnikka[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. Page was previously a stub article created in 2017, before being BLARred without consensus in 2022. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Finland. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. He seems to be notable as a business executive. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not super thrilled by the sourcing identified by Eastmain. The Ilta-Sanomat story is an interview, as is the Kauppalehti (based on the title and except, I don't have access to the unpaywalled version) story. Also worth noting that Kauppalehti is a ... mixed bag, at best. If this was a WP:NORG case, I'd discount it pretty much wholesale. Based on my rather poor swedish, the Åbo Underrättelser story (at least the paper version, which is the only one I have access to) is more about the business than Aarikka. Yes, he's mentioned, but it's all just "Aarikka said so-and-so about this-and-that thing his employer is doing." As a business executive alone, I would !vote to delete.
On a more positive note, the sports career looks more promising. He was apparently voted by sports reporters as the best (Finnish) sailor jointly with Petri Leskinen in 1996 ([54], paywalled) and the Sailor of the Year in both 1992 and 1996 by Suomen Purjehtijaliitto [fi] ([55], [56]), again together with Petri Leskinen. There's also further interview coverage from 1990s, e.g. Helsingin Sanomat (1994, paywalled). Also, appears to have been involved in a controversy in terms of using the sail number to advertise a sponsor in 1994 (Helsingin Sanomat, 1994, paywalled]). There's also a ton of coverage about the subject's domestic sports career, which includes the 1991 Finnish Championship in the 470 class. (Helsingin Sanomat, 1991, paywalled).
And that's from a single newspaper, a quick skim thru the National Library of Finland's newspaper archive (No public online access, so no links. Sorry.) shows there's at least a full page bio in Uusi Suomi on 7 May 1989. Searching for more is frustrated a bit by the fact that there are so many newspaper hits of him in Olympics and various Finnish sporting events. Plenty of these fall in that awkward "probably WP:ROUTINE, but a bit bordeline" category, where they combine sports results with some interview material and perhaps a paragraph of biographic material: not quite "purely sports scores", but not in-depth either.
It's a bit of a mixed bag, but even if nothing individually is a "smoking gun", the amount of medium-quality sources is enough to push me to a keep.-Ljleppan (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Okoslavia (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see what the problem is. The outcome of the RfD was "restore" and the article has plenty of references this time. JIP | Talk 15:57, 11 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!} 01:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Heather[edit]

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

The article primarily uses primary sources and reviews of the series in general, a quick Google search doesn't give sources that prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 01:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 01:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A minor character throughout the series. It's better for the CSI wiki fandom than here. Conyo14 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So minor she is not mentioned in the main list of characters for the show but just in Minor_characters_in_CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Others, which I've nominated for deletion (redirect IF that list is kept or her entry merged to the main one). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus. Primary sources aren't enough to support an article. There aren't enough reliable third-party sources to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:54, 14 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 List of Battlestar Galactica characters Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hera Agathon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Consists entirely of an unsourced plot summary. I was unable to find any sources that prove notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. I think this is probably more suitable for a Fandom Wikia, and the article deleted and redirected to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Qcne (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. I found no evidence of notability. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no need to delete (WP:SOFTDEL is fine). No need to keep beyond redirect, pure WP:FANCRUFT, effectively unreferenced too. I thought we cleaned up that kind of stuff a while back... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough WP:SIGCOV to pass notability. Neutral on redirect. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:39, 13 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.