Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 10	June 12 >

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 redirect‎ to List of USL League Two teams. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Hawks[edit]

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

Unreferenced for over a decade. Found no significant coverage of the subject to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, United States of America, and Florida. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of USL League Two teams as possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems the best choice. Minimal coverage, not enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of USL League Two teams. This article here failed GNG. CastJared (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the suggested list, per GiantSnowman. As a mild alternative to removal. Suitskvarts (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dirk Nowitzki#Early life. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silke Nowitzki[edit]

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

I am unable to find indepth coverage on her. There are some mentions and mostly she is mentioned in articles about her brother who is also a basketball player. Shinadamina (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Sports. Shinadamina (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, Germany, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dirk Nowitzki#Early life if no SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia has an article on her under the name Silke Mayer but it does not contain multiple sources of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the target suggested above; I couldn't find any significant coverage of the subject when searching in English, and while it's possible German sources exist, that would need to be demonstrated for the standalone article to be kept. Hatman31 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Gladden[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO with a lack of substantial/independent sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. This autobiography satisfies WP:G5 as a creation of a blocked user. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Article is already stub and doesn't pass gng also g5 was declined so I think this nomination should stay. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Advertising, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing any SIGCOV for the subject.-KH-1 (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CV-style page created by a user blocked for spam. She's all in web-search, btw, but WP:PRIMARY dominate. Suitskvarts (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. DarkHorseMayehm (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Reeve Oliver. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Endless Bummer EP[edit]

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

I cannot find any coverage or reviews on this EP and it also has not charted anywhere. Shinadamina (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shinadamina (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. Skynxnex (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reeve Oliver: found no coverage either. Band doesn't look particularly notable per their own article either (though that needs a much closer inspection than I've given), but the page is the obviously suitable redirect target for now so long as it survives. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the suggested page, per WP:ATD-R reasons. Suitskvarts (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Holborn Circus. As an ATD (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson, Forster and Wilcox[edit]

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

I am unable to find any indepth coverage on this company. Google books has some mentions but nothing indepth. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Shinadamina (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Companies. Shinadamina (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Holborn Circus, where the architects are mentioned as designers of the Daily Mirror building. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ATD-R, though wouldn't oppose removal, too. Suitskvarts (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imarda[edit]

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

Not seeing the sources that support notability for this subject (tagged for notability for a decade) and no obvious merge target. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and New Zealand. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My preliminary view is that the company founder/owner Selwyn Pellett is notable and this company is not. There is little published about Imarda although they are present in a number of countires as the article states. I'll do some more research and see what I can turn up NealeWellington (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nothing notable about the company. The company founder on the other hand is notable and should have an article. NealeWellington (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 22:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I too am not finding much coverage. And the official site appears to be down. Not seeing notability as is.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 22:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not shown. Persent101 (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks WP:SIGCOV, two cite are "Dead links". JoeNMLC (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And, if my first page passes WP:NPP, I'm willing to get involved in creating a page about the company's notable founder. Suitskvarts (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvir Ahmed Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I’m not seeing in-depth coverage that would support the notability of this subject. Mccapra (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Mccapra (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. DreamRimmer (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 22:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did WP:BEFORE and was unable to find anything. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 15:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks the basic elements of a biography. JoeNMLC (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the analysis in the first AfD nomination. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a G5, prolific LTA. ‎. -- ferret (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Liu[edit]

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

Suspected advertising, and may be created by User:Cyberpunk2077JohnnySilverhand socks. But the creator of the article isn't blocked, and it doesn't apply to the G5 for now. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hong Kong. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High school student with the same name [1], I don't think it's the same person. Nothing for this youtuber. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the guideline Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes and the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article says the subject is Janet Liu (Chinese: 廖茵婷; born 23 August 1989). I did searches for sources for "Janet Liu" and "廖茵婷" and could not find anything about this person.
The article says the subject's YouTube channel is https://www.youtube.com/JanetLiu19890823. The link is broken.
The article says, "In 2020, she participated in the ViuTV reality television talent competition King Maker III (Chinese: 全民造星III), but she was eliminated in the first round." I did not find any evidence at King Maker III and the Chinese Wikipedia article zh:全民造星III that Janet Liu (廖茵婷) participated in King Maker III. The participants section of the Chinese Wikipedia article (zh:全民造星III#參賽者) does not include her name.
Besides the broken YouTube link, the article is unsourced. This is likely a hoax, and the image at File:Janet Liu Hong Kong YouTuber.jpg uploaded by the same user probably should be deleted as a hoax too.
Cunard (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Related open report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyberpunk2077JohnnySilverhand#11 June 2023. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington University College of Professional Studies[edit]

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

All sources are self-references. Unclear notability. Mostly reads as a directory and promotional piece. Wozal (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Wozal (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. And maybe we should check George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, too. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rayron Gracie[edit]

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

Has not medalled at black belt level at an elite international competition yet. WP:TOOSOON and Notability is not inherited. Note: I'm creating this page for nominator Wafflesvarog.
Nswix (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Brazil. Nswix (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE wait until black belt. Lewolka (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Nominator. Does not currently pass WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article fails WP:NATHLETE. Members of the Gracie family often have articles created WP:TOOSOON and they end up deleted because, as the nominator mentioned, notability is not inherited. This is another case where the person would have an article created if their last name was different. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we should also be careful not to systematically suspect a member of the Gracie family of “inherited notability”. In this case the article fails because he’s at brown belt but he’s still a 4 x world champion and currently #1 ranked brown belt by the IBJJF. Lewolka (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources. He hasn't competed at the highest level of his sport, which is standard for sports notability and specifically required by the martial arts criteria mentioned at WP:MANOTE. He may become notable later, but that requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL and indicates that, at a minimum, it's WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere to redirect and pointless to draft. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Karnataka (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by spoken languages[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:OR/WP:SYNTH WP:CROSSCAT, mostly WP:UNSOURCED. It is completely arbitrary to create a list of countries by languages spoken, because 1 person not speaking the majority language is already a "minority". A single city like Brussels already has inhabitants speaking about 100 different native languages, and there's no point in marking these all as "minorities". In addition, CfDs dating as far back as 2019, recently repeatedly confirmed that language family is WP:NONDEFINING. Finally, if the topic of the list is spoken languages (a demographic question), why bother mentioning which languages are official, recognised or protected (a legal question)? This list has no clear topic, tries to be/do multiple things at once, and fails at all of them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete let’s just say that basically every language is probably spoken by someone in the US, and it’s impossible to count every language spoken everywhere else because there’s always one random person (or a lot of random people) who speak Splotsylvanian in Florbistan even if it’s not even a top-10 language in Florbistan. Countries by majority languages maybe, but not literally every language spoken by at least x persons. Dronebogus (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. (Well, admittedly I wasn't thinking about Splotsylvanian in Florbistan. But I put the question to a friend of mine: "Should we include "Karakalpakstani" in "Netherlands" if one inhabitant of Amsterdam spoke it?" She: "No. It has to be significant." I: "Ah, but how many people is "significant"?" She: "I don't know." It's just arbitrary.). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each respective language should have a list of places where it's spoken, like Greek_language#Geographic_distribution. With the US listed for 74 languages (https://language.mki.wisc.edu/essays/letzebuergesch-and-swiss-german-in-wisconsin/ was interesting to look up), I don't think this is a meaningful or useful list or any more useful than various other places. Reywas92^Talk 17:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be mostly original research and there are far too many unknowns about which minority languages are used in certain countries. Ajf773 (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really the most linguistically weird page I have ever seen on WP. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list can never be made based on spoken languages, there will always be one not included. Karnataka (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Vetere[edit]

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

Non-notable author. PR-based coverage, nothing reliable found. US-Verified (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Forbes article is a contributor piece [2], this CNBC article looks ok [3], but everything else I find is a PR piece. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As for the two sources mentioned by Oaktree b, everything is clear on Forbes, while the second one, in my opinion, is not far off the interview and in any case cannot back up much of the information on the page. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be ref-bombed with PR coverage like what nom stated, agree with what nom stated. Karnataka (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catharine Young (scientist)[edit]

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

PR-based coverage. Lacks reliable WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one [4] is better than passing mention. Not enough, but at least partial WP:GNG-point, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a blog. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Where do you see that? The authors seem legit per info given. And "Welcome to POLITICO’s West Wing Playbook" doesn't seem to state "Not proper Politico content" either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a chatty but legitimate column of reporting from a reputable news organization — a newsletter for (people who fancy themselves to be) political insiders, not a blog. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Science, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional~~ Delete. No presence found by me yet on GS. No pass of WP:Prof. Although her academic qualifications are in science it seems that she has left science to become an administrator. I question if it is now appropriate to describe her as "(scientist)". Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I have not yet formulated an opinion on the merits of this specific article, but I found this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators as part of a batch of five new deletion nominations ~~by the same nominator~~, all of women academics. This is far out of proportion to the number of articles, or the number of new articles, on women academics. If this nominator is specifically targeting women for deletion, we have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, the nom's Afd stats [5] doesn't indicate shenanigans, and the noms indicate some WP:BEFORE has been done. I'll AGF at this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: it looks to me like you're looking at a batch of 5 new AfD nominations, two by US-Verified and three by Chiserc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
US-Verified's June 11 afd:s are 1 company, 3 men and 3 women. That doesn't seem redflag-ish. "five new deletion nominations by the same nominator, all of women academics" seems like a misreading. Consider striking that on the pages you wrote it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk, Chiserc has admitted to searching through women's categories for articles to delete. The intentions may be good but the effect is discriminatory. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't misinterpret what I said. I looked for many categories to sort out potential notability issues. You even blamed for nominations that I didn't do, like this and another one. The active nominations now are 3 women and 2 men academics (and many others). Please, check something more carefully before striking the same message on many pages. Chiserc (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So your above comment ("I have not yet formulated...") was referring to Chiserc, not the nominator/US-Verified? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't part of this nomination at all. David Eppstein involved my name on this discussion, and probably another one, and I don't know why he blamed for. I won't continue this discussion here, since it's irrelevant to the topic. Chiserc (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The batch of women academic nominators had two different nominators. Of the two, the one I have been in contact with on my talk (User:Chiserc) appears to be unrepentant about the discriminatory effect caused by searching women's categories for deletion targets. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a person of the same name in the media, but it's not her. Suitskvarts (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Karnataka (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Shields[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable TED fellow. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Latter Day Saints, Oregon, and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have not yet formulated an opinion on the merits of this specific article, but I found this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators as part of a batch of five new deletion nominations ~~by the same nominator,~~ all of women academics. This is far out of proportion to the number of articles, or the number of new articles, on women academics. If this nominator is specifically targeting women for deletion, we have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator does not seem to disproportionately nominate articles on women for deletion, see here. Mooonswimmer 01:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The batch of women academic nominators had two different nominators. Of the two, the one I have been in contact with on my talk (User:Chiserc) appears to be unrepentant about the discriminatory effect caused by searching women's categories for deletion targets. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person, entrepreneur. I found [6], but I don't think it's the same person.Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable academic. Mooonswimmer 01:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Sources are mostly her works, and to be notable they suppose to be about her. Suitskvarts (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Karnataka (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Battle of Bakhmut. As an ATD (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Paraskoviivka[edit]

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

I've followed the news of the battle of Bakhmut since its start. Compared to other neighboring settlements, the fighting at Paraskoviivka was not very notable. Other settlements have had more notable infighting and have been for a longer time in the news: Opytne, Klishchiivka, Krasna Hora, Yahidne, Ivanivske, Khromove...

In simpler words, this engagement is part of the Battle of Bakhmut and in my opinion falls WP:NOTABLE, and should be merged into its parent.

Note that the article was already merged once [7], though there was no formal AfD back then. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article seems to be well sourced, (though I have not combed through said sources) so if it is deleted, its content should be merged into the Battle of Bakhmut article. Physeters^✉ 21:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Battle of Bakhmut: where it is covered. Minor part of a wider battle, coverage is just fairly typical day-by-day reporting (WP:NOTNEWS). Better covered in tandem with the other events than as a singularity. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on redirect, the towns around Bakhmut have all had significant battles, with some like Opytne, Ivanivske, and Klishchiivka all being as fierce if not fiercer than Paraskoviivka. The Bakhmut article summarizes these all well, and the contents of this article fits better in the Bakhmut article than standalone. Jebiguess (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ PRmaster1 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victory at Sea (game)[edit]

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

The article was written by a contributor affiliated with the subject, and it has a non-neutral style. Does not pass GNG and no sources independent of the publisher could be found on the web. PRmaster1 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator; it seems like some sources have been found and issues with this article have been fixed. I would still suggest renaming it (not a game, but a set of rules). PRmaster1 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Games. PRmaster1 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree original content was non-encyclopedic. I have replaced it with sourced and cited content about game system, publication history, and critical reception. Guinness323 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Issues seem to have been fixed.Paulturtle (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, article has been rewritten from scratch to fix the issues. BOZ (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fingertip (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 and 4 is a review
Source 2 is two sentences about an actress' participation in the serial
Source 3 is a routine entertainment promotional topic on the serial
Source 5 is an interview with an actor on the sequel series Karnataka (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this is not a film (Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability), there are two reliable reviews [8], [9], [10]. DareshMohan (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - independent reviews are exactly what you are looking to see in an ideal case, and the nomination notes that there are two of them. This meets the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DareshMohan.DreamRimmer (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaha Kalyanam (web series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1-3 is the episodes of the serial, of which 1 is unavailable
Source 4-5 is about an actress who participated in the serial
Source 6 is tabloid news coverage on reactions Karnataka (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maangalya Sandhosham[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 is routine entertainment update on serial starting
Source 2 is the platform page to view the serial Karnataka (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sillunu Oru Kaadhal (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 is a routine promotional update that the serial is starting
Source 2-4 shows an actor's participation in the serial
Source 5 does not mention the serial at all Karnataka (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sivagami (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV: Karnataka (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Madni[edit]

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

no enough coverage in RS therefore it should go. Saqib (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anda Ka Kasam[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 is the Hotstar page
Source 2 is a promotional routine update that this gameshow will start
Source 3 and 4 are from Filmibeat, and are not reliable are are promotional news
Source 5-7 are routine updates to show what's happening with the show.

None have shown the notability of this subject. Karnataka (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shervin Mirhashemi[edit]

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

Most of the coverage is about Legends Hospitality. A separate page is unwarranted, especially when there are concerns of conflicts of interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic. US-Verified (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly unfortunate on AfC review, but I think it was the correct review. My thorough WP:BEFORE analysis suggests that there is in-depth coverage of him in multiple publications. This coverage includes his current role, as well as his work with Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) as its head ([11], [12]). Interestingly, there is also more in-depth coverage about his legal issues, including a major lawsuit filed against him by the AEG. So, clearly a separate article is warranted and this meets WP:GNG. NP Hatfield (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lawsuit was a high-profile case filed by Anschutz Entertainment Group against Shervin Mirhashemi. It was covered by Law 360, Lexology, and other media publications [13], [14]. His tenure as the president and CEO of Anschutz Entertainment Group is enough to prove his notability. Most CEOs of Fortune 500 companies survive AfD, and anything related to the NFL is incredibly noteworthy. Another in-depth article about him: [15]. Passes WP:BASIC. 192.222.232.88 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for digging into his previous role with AEG and the subsequent lawsuit. I believe we can now write a balanced biography without it sounding too promotional. Thus, I am happy to withdraw this nomination to avoid any further waste of time. US-Verified (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbler Bee-Luxe[edit]

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

From what I gathered the game is a shoot 'em up that was originally released on a website as a download and then included later on some Mac magazine cover discs. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Sources in the article are: 1) Next Generation magazine review which is a reliable source and can be considered significant coverage. 2) Incredibly Strange Games blog has a review but is an unreliable source. Also I was able to find this Macworld article: [16], but it is only a passing mention of the game. MobyGames and UVL don't list any reviews. Mika1h (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the looks of it, it's not notable. Paging @BOZ:, they are an experienced editor so I assume there are other sources they have available that justifies its creation, or if they just made it on a whim with no intention to prove its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I have changed my opinion due to the below comment. I support draftifying until possible reliable sources can be found. Still, if said sources are totally inaccessible, then the article should not have been made in mainspace yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing Newspapers.com but as with a lot of these the company websites need to be checked for reviews here + other info. [17](release date + other stuff), [18].[19] (some reviews here but I can't access them). Sources do exist here. Timur9008 (talk) 14:53, June 12, 2023 (UTC)
Comment This has made me realize that key Mac magazines from the 1990s are only partially archived online, like MacFormat and Mac Home Journal. Dgpop (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Finding sources seems to not be viable, but it may be in the future. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ullathai Allitha (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 is routine entertainment news that summarises the launch promo
Source 2 is routine entertainment news that summarises the launch promo
Source 3 is routine entertainment news that summarises the launch promo
Source 4 is routine entertainment news with TV schedule
Source 5 is routine entertainment news that summarises the plot
Source 6 is routine entertainment news about serial starting
Source 7 is the YouTube promo link Karnataka (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kannedhirey Thondrinal (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 is a routine entertainment update on the serial starting.
Source 2 is a routine entertainment update on the serial starting.
Source 3 is about the actress
Source 4 is routine updates on two serials starting
Source 5 is same as source 2
Source 6 is the serial promo on YouTube
Source 7 is routine promotional fluff about the serial starting
Source 8 is tabloid news on the serial starting
Source 9 is routine entertainment updates on serial starting
Source 10 is routine updates about the actress

This article heavily relies on promotional sources that don't show the subject's notability Karnataka (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-12 ✍️ create ← 2022-06 move to → Draft:Kannedhirey Thondrinal (TV series)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita School of Medicine[edit]

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

Contested redirect - all the in-depth sourcing is about the hospital. Should be a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, Haryana, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that this page can be made at least as a stub. Because Hospital and the school are different topics and It can't be merged. It is one of the notable Hedgeunkil (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.i think it is suitable to school article so keep it on MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources seem fine to me. Cheers! // 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a lot of sources [20] on the school, seems to meet WP:GNG. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - School of medicine is attached to hospital and WP:N is good. So, better to keep instead of redirect. There are many sources available in web aswell. Hedgeunkil (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Striking dupe vote.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at the time of nomination, there was not a single independent, reliable source which went in-depth about the school of medicine. Since the nomination, a total of 2 references have been added, the first, is a brief mention of the school, amidst a much wider discussion of the need for more doctors and opening more schools, while the second is a simple database entry.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently multiple independent, reliable sources have been added. Please look into it Hedgeunkil (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the coverage of national rankings in the New Indian Express ([21] [22]), despite themselves essentially being press releases, seems highly indicative of there being additional coverage available. This is an WP:NEXIST argument, as I don't think that the current sourcing adds up to WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solitaire[edit]

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

A concept article based on a foundation of WP:SYNTH - there are no sources in the article which cover the proposed broad scope of of the article as stated in the first sentence (...any tabletop game which one can play by oneself. It should be a disambiguation page. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very strange nomination as the lede of the article is one of the dictionary definitions of the word meant to define the article, and there have been very many books published on solitaire games throughout the years. If there's a problem with the article, that can be fixed by editing, but I'm really surprised that this was nominated at all given its notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: thanks for your comment. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Misplaced dictionary entries. Regarding your statement very many books published on solitaire games, please could you provide links? The ones I can see which describe multiple versions of "solitaire" all refer to Patience (game). Onceinawhile (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your link says multiple distinct meanings, while this topic is on one specific meaning of the term, and also If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted. which is not the case here. Books include [23] and [24]. Note those are the first two that came up, I have spent very little time on a source search. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: those links include only card games - i.e. versions of Patience (game), thus proving my point that no sources cover the purported scope of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we can only have this article if there's an article that discusses [25] in the same breath as those card games, even though the lede is a valid definition? That's ridiculous. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Yes, that is a fundamental principal of this encyclopedia: WP:SYNTH (part of WP:OR). The opening of the article here is wrongly suggesting, without a source, that all one-player tabletop games are a genre of games called solitaire. Many traditional one-player tabletop games, such as Jigsaw puzzle, Solo whist, Tangram or Labyrinth (marble game), are not games of solitaire. So perhaps the article is really trying to say that all one-player tabletop games with the word "solitaire" in their names are in fact a genre of games, which is again untrue and also unsourced. The article contravenes WP:OR. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just applying the primary definition of the word. See: a game played by one person alone, as a game played with marbles or pegs on a board having hollows or holes. at [26]. SportingFlyer T·C 10:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That link is to a dictionary, whilst we are building an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Major differences – card solitaire, Mahjong solitaire and peg solitaire are excellent examples of topics which have similar names but should not be grouped together just because of their name.

We would all support an article with the scope of “one player games” or even “one player tabletop games” if we have sources with the same scope, but it would look completely different to this one, and it would not be called Solitaire, as most one-player games do not have that word in their name. The scope of this article is “one player tabletop games with the word solitaire in their common name”, which is not a single subject according to any external source. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a dictionary entry though - I understand WP:NOTDICT, and this article is distinct. You're trying to claim that the common definition of the term is SYNTH, which is clearly incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 16:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And places like BoardGameGeek use the tag Solo/Solitaire to refer to a "single player game". [27] SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am saying that the definition used in the article is SYNTH – i.e. that there is a special genre of “one player tabletop games with the word solitaire in their name”. “Solitaire” is simply French for “solitary person”; the use of the term in the title of the game is completely irrelevant. If you want an article on One-Player Tabletop Games, that is fine. But that is not what this article is. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At no point in time does the article say that it's a special "genre" of game. I'm not sure what you think this article is. I think it's pretty clearly on games that the word "solitaire" refers to. SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, for an article about the word, we need the word or phrase in and of itself [to pass] Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I just came across a recent essay that I think is relevant here called WP:Ambiguous subjects by Shooterwalker. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Solitaire is a very well known genre of one-player tabletop games, especially cards, but also other types of game. Should definitely not be deleted. Bermicourt (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: card solitaire, Mahjong solitaire, and Peg solitaire are as much a "genre" of games as writing instrument, musical instrument and surgical instrument are a "genre" of tools. Instrument is a disambiguation page, and so should solitaire be. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the same at all. Solitaires are all forms of game played by one person; whereas those instruments have nothing in common apart from the word "instrument". Bermicourt (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer’s dictionary.com test disagrees[28]: “a mechanical tool or implement, especially one used for delicate or precision work”. Instrument is a disambiguation page because no external sources other than a dictionary cover this wide range of mostly unrelated topics in one place. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and move either Solitaire (disambiguation) or Patience (game) here. The definition is made up, i.e. SYNTH. There are card games and there are other types of games (not necessarily "tabletop"), admittedly all with the same general goal of removing cards, tiles, stones, etc. However, none of the sources, as far as I can tell or have been able to find, indicate they are lumped together. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally part of the definition of the word. [29] a game played by one person alone, as a game played with marbles or pegs on a board having hollows or holes. SportingFlyer T·C 10:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer is right. No way is this SYNTH. Here's another definition by American games authors Wood & Goddard in The Complete Book of Games: "Solitaire...properly applies to any game that one player can play alone." Bermicourt (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty not to give the full quote: "there are excellent games of Patience for two or more players; but most... are designed for one player… Solitaire...properly applies to any game that one player can play alone." So it is explicitly describing a subset of Patience (game). Nothing to do with Mahjong or peg solitaire. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only word missing from my quote is "which" "... Solitaire, which properly applies to any game that one player can play alone." It's a games book and they are referring to any "game", not any "card game". Bermicourt (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the quoted page (p.241) literally says "The Patience or Solitaire Group". They are talking about card games (i.e. Patience). Onceinawhile (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your assumption. Bermicourt (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile here's David Parlett: "By definition, a solitaire is any game for one player..." He goes on to describe subsets played with cards as well as the game of Peg Solitaire. Bermicourt (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the book is The Penguin Book of Card Games? Almost all of Parlett's books are about cards. Please could you provide the full quote so we can see how he incorporates Peg Solitaire? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Of course its notable. Anyone who thinks otherwise should have no part in building an encyclopedia. I'm sure there are are some venues that welcome pedantry, but this is not one of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Careful. You're on the verge of violating WP:no personal attacks. Also "of course its notable" is hardly a convincing argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil B is merely saying in his view, it's WP:SKYBLUE i.e. obviously notable. Which, frankly, it is. Which is why authors like Roni Bird, in describing a numbers game for two or more players, can say without need for qualification or explanation "this can be played as a solitaire game" i.e. one person can play it. Bermicourt (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so obvious, why are people arguing? Obviously it's not obvious. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious to anyone qualified to write an encyclopedia. Hence my comment above. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an encyclopedia article. The lead is just a dictionary definition, the history section only covers card solitaire, the other section serves the same purpose as the disambiguation page, and the article does not even have a well-defined subject, as shown in discussion here. Also, this opinion most certainly does not make me unqualified to write an encyclopedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - solitaire games as a category encompassing the full range of the dictionary definition are discussed in [30] and ^[1], in addition to the wealth of literature on each individual variety. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: thanks for your comment. I just read both links – the letter in Science is explictly describing only card solitaire (and all his footnotes refer only to card solitaire too), and the paper by Sousa and Silva are using the term solitaire as shorthand for the generic term "one-player" ("…our proposal analysed the most popular modern board games with solo game modes"). So neither supports the scope of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion[edit]

I have been reflecting on how different editors are not able to understand each other on what is otherwise a simple and uncontroversial topic. I think it is because different editors have different understandings of the scope of this article. There are three options:

Option	Scope	Comment
1	The word solitaire	Not an encyclopedic topic on its own as no wide coverage outside dictionaries
2	All one-player tabletop games	An encyclopedic topic. Solitaire likely not the most common name for this scope, as most one-player tabletop games are not commonly called solitaire.
3	All one-player tabletop games with the name solitaire in the title	Not an encyclopedia topic on its own, as no known sources with this scope

The current scope is clearly #3, hence my view that it should be deleted. The keep votes seem to believe that the real scope is #2. This would require a rewrite and probably a change of name.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comes across as a little patronising; as if you're pointing out to other editors what they think and also how they should think if only they had your clarity of vision.

As to the table: the statement that solitaire has "no wide coverage outside dictionaries" is patently untrue. Options 2 and 3 are not neutral either, but a reiteration of your points of view above, which are clearly not universally shared. So this is not an "uncontroversial" topic at all, otherwise we would have been able to reach a consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I am disappointed with your approach here. You have made contradictory statements above: "Solitaire is a very well known genre of one-player tabletop games" and a day later "Solitaires are all forms of game played by one person". First you stated #3 above, then you switched to #2. I am trying my best to pin the discussion down so we can reach a consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion, i.e. a discussion about whether this title should appear in red or blue. Discussions about article scope belong on the article talk page. If it's not obvious to someone that this should be a blue link then I stand by my comment above. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: what about disambiguation? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Solitaire (disambiguation) already exists. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sousa, M., and M. Silva. "Solitaire paper automation: When solitaire modern board game modes approach artificial intelligence." 22nd International Conference on Intelligent Games and Simulation, GAME-ON 2021. 2021.

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a company that does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Only dependent on two sources which a large part of the article left totally unsourced since 2016. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Author here, I did some scanning online and have found very little additional sources of quality according to WP:ORGDEPTH. I have to agree with Jamiebuba on lack of conformity to WP:SIGCOV as well. Not my best work, I agree with proposal for deletion. Ruminater (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All I can find is one iffy source, the Mining Suppliers Trading Association. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found this [31], under its Danish title. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also found it listed as one of the top 10 Charleston Heston films at In Session [32] DonaldD23 talk to me 19:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is also a review in Variety and one on TV Guide.— MY, OH, MY! (mushy yank) — 21:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy withdraw per Variety and TV Guide reviews. The Film Creator (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. New sources presented. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hayes (businessman)[edit]

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

does not meet notability criteria for Significant coverage. The article is mainly based on the The Seattle Times article. he is notable for one event, becoming JetBlue CEO FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Aviation, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CEO of a large public corporation, with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, some of which haven't been cited in the article yet (including BBC.com and Observer.com). WP:ONEEVENT does not apply as coverage of his role has been sustained since his taking over as CEO. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply here -- serving as CEO of a large corporation for 9+ years is not a single event. If so, then many other articles of CEOs (such as Doug Parker, Ed Bastian, and Richard H. Anderson, to name a few other airline CEOs) should also be deleted. Since this nomination, coverage of the subject in the USA Today, Dallas Morning News, and The Observer has been added, which should help to ameliorate concerns about the breadth of coverage about Hayes. Longhornsg (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per edits since nomination. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sreeja Reddy Saripalli[edit]

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

Some of her statements are referenced in the given sources, but there is no significant coverage about her. I couldn't locate anything on Google, either. Fails to meet WP:GNG. DreamRimmer (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Physician significant only for founding a clinic; no indication of notability per GNG. I had initially suggested an A7 speedy delete, but that was declined. —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only founded an autism clinic with no further details Karnataka (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to fail WP:GNG, the sources in the article are mainly interview based pages with liitle else about her Josey Wales^Parley 22:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tried to search sourcing to support the article, but found nothing to establish WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A comment was posted by User:Ashokpatnaik3 on the article talk page. I have not checked for notability, so neither endorse nor oppose it:
having many article in her name, so need not to delete
Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin Rego International School[edit]

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

Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. School was closed down in 2014. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search in English and Chinese in gnews yielded nothing. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Would reconsider if there is Chinese coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly its Fails.WP:NSCHOOL Monhiroe (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Quevedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:NACTOR. Although multiple roles in TV series are mentioned, no references are provided, which makes verifying them difficult, and none of them seems to be significant. Couldn't find any sources on the web besides celebrity sites and content copied from Wikipedia. None of the 7 other wikis mention any sources whatsoever. PRmaster1 (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. PRmaster1 (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No news coverage on Google News — only a blog shows up. Even if the blog was reliable, Quevedo is only mentioned in passing. On Search I see his IMDb page and Rotten Tomatoes. IMDb usually isn't a reliable source, and Rotten Tomatoes won't really help us improve this article. Besides that I see many unreliable celebrity websites. With the sources I could find, he does not pass the general notability guidelines, or the general BLP notability guidelines, or the actor notability guidelines. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm afraid I have only found brief mentions, blogs, user-generated content, and celebrity sites without byline, too. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orideetse Thela[edit]

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

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC states and I see no evidence that Thela meets this minimum requirement. Le Mauricien has a trivial mention of Thela, as does Le Défi and Le Mauricien 2 but trivial mentions are the exact opposite of significant coverage (see also WP:SIGCOV). He also seems to fall short of the recently revised WP:NBAD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Botswana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBADMINTON. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Crescent Rupayan Tower[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV M.parvage (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Bangladesh. M.parvage (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It will be or is the second-tallest building in Dhaka so I am very surprised that it would not be notable, but I can't find clear GNG sources on it in English. SportingFlyer T·C 13:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you find a link on it, This info should be putted in the List of tallest buildings in Bangladesh and List of tallest buildings in Dhaka. Not an individual page. M.parvage (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Circa 2013 it was promised to be 35 stories high, but as of July 2022 it was planned to be only 15 stories.[33] If construction ever begins (it was still awaiting planning approval), enough may be written about it to make it notable, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dad's Army home video releases[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Completely unsourced. Nothing notable about this list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Television. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can we just start PRODding these things? Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. Ajf773 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aanandham Aarambham[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 is copy-pasted from here, which in it self a plot summary and a quote from a lead

Source 2 is a routine entertainment update that is plot summary and a quote from a lead

Source 3 is once again a routine entertainment update that is plot summary and a quote from a lead

Source 4 is once again a routine entertainment update that is plot summary and a quote from a lead

Source 5 is also copy-pasted from here, which in it self a plot summary and a quote from a lead

Source 6 is also a routine entertainment update that is just a plot summary and quotes from two people Karnataka (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Tamil Nadu. Karnataka (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Janega[edit]

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

Fails at WP:BIO without any research achievement so far. She has authored some publications, but she is not included in the list of Highly Cited Researchers and there is nothing to prove WP:PROF. Chiserc (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Chiserc (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A sensible alternative to deletion appears to be redirection to a stub on her notable book The Once and Future Sex, which has been reviewed in several reliable sources [34][35][36][37]. I did not quickly find reviews of her other book, but WP:NAUTHOR is somewhat plausible. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect your inability to find reviews of the other one is partly because its title was listed incorrectly: it's "a graphic history", not "a graphic guide". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have not yet formulated an opinion on the merits of this specific article, but I found this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators as part of a batch of five new deletion nominations ~~by the same nominator~~, all of women academics. This is far out of proportion to the number of articles, or the number of new articles, on women academics. If this nominator is specifically targeting women for deletion, we have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The batch of women academic nominators had two different nominators. Of the two, the one I have been in contact with on my talk (User:Chiserc) appears to be unrepentant about the discriminatory effect caused by searching women's categories for deletion targets. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added six book reviews to the article. She now has eight reliably published reviews for two books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. One of the books is in graphic-novel format, and there's also some incidental coverage that I didn't add about the choice to format it that way. In any case, using that format doesn't detract from notability. Citation counts are not usually very informative for academics in book fields. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 2 reviews for the 2nd book (and many for the other), the WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NCREATIVE case is now convincing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the relevant wiki-notability guideline by virtue of having multiple books receive multiple reliable reviews apiece. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability demonstrated through multiple sources critically engaging through Janega's work as demonstrated through the book reviews. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BT-4 Combat[edit]

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

Promotional and notability not established for this particular piece of sporting/gaming equipment ... lack of independent and reliable sources Ajf773 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Firearms. Ajf773 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet more non-notable paintball fandom. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Karnataka (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ without prejudice to further discussion of a merge. The nomination rationale that this subject is a hoax or OR-constructed topic has been refuted in discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Soviet Republic[edit]

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

WP:OR or WP:HOAX, no reliable source, no Russian or Ukrainian interwiki. Panam2014 (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. The Bolsheviks formed governments in Ukraine three times.

Paul Robert Magocsi (1996), A History of Ukraine, 1st ed.

p 495: . . . November 1917. Soon after, [the Bolsheviks] formed a Soviet Ukrainian government and, with Bolshevik Russian help, drove their erstwhile Rada ally out of Kiev. Their control of the city lasted for only three weeks in February 1918, until the German Army forced them out of Kiev and, shortly after, out of Dnieper Ukraine entirely. . . .
p 497: They regrouped in Taganrog, on the shores of the Sea of Azov, where on 18 April they dissolved their own Soviet Ukrainian government and replaced it with a coordinating committee that was to direct the struggle against the German occupier. . . . On 19–20 April 1918, the distinct Communist party (Bolshevik) of Ukraine – (CP(b)U) was established, although it was to become increasingly subordinate to the Russian Communist party.
p 497–98: They were in fact already close to the Ukrainian border at Kursk, where on 28 November 1918 they secretly formed a ‘provisional’ Soviet Ukrainian government (Tymchasovyi Robitnychno-Seliansʹkyi Uriad Ukraïny) with the intention of marching into Dnieper Ukraine. . . . The Ukrainian Soviet Republic was Ukrainian in the territorial, not the national sense . . .

I believe this article represents the first part of Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets. This article could be merged into that one, but these were two separate governments, so there is a case for articles about them. Ultimately, maybe there should be an overview article about the history of Bolshevism in Ukraine, and separate ones for each of the three governments. —Michael Z. 05:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac: so the name Ukrainian Soviet Republic for the fist government is false. We could have one or two articles about the Bolshevik Republics in Ukraine but we need one article by government. The articles should be rewrited and/or renamed. Panam2014 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if the name is wrong. Magocsi uses it in the context of the second government, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t used for the first. It seems logical that the first Soviet Ukrainian government was also intended to be a government of Soviet Ukraine, a republic.

Will try to do a bit more research. —Michael Z. 15:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orest Subtelny (2015), Ukraine: A History, 4th ed., refers to the SUR at the start, and three Ukrainian Soviet governments:

p 350: Furious [after the Kyiv congress of December 17, 1917], the small Bolshevik faction abandoned the congress, moved to Kharkiv, denounced the Central Rada as the “enemy of the people,” and proclaimed the creation of the Soviet Ukrainian Republic. At the same time, Bolshevik troops from Russia began the invasion of Ukraine.
p 364: After much wavering, Moscow sanctioned the formation of another Ukrainian Soviet government on 20 November 1918.
p 365: The second Ukrainian Soviet government lasted about seven months.
p 376: Therefore, the formation, on 21 December 1919, of the third Ukrainian Soviet government was accompanied with patriotic rhetoric such as “the free and independent Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic again arises from the dead.”

—Michael Z. 00:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serhii Plokhy (2015), The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine doesn’t cover the history of the Bolshevik régime in detail for this period, but does mention its start.

p 208: The Bolshevik organizers left Kyiv for Kharkiv, where a congress of soviets from the industrial east of the country met in late December. It declared the creation of a new sate, the Ukrainian People’s Republic of Soviets, on December 24, 1917. At the beginning of January 1918, Bolshevik troops from Russia entered Ukraine and moved on Kyiv under the banner of the virtual state proclaimed in Kharkiv, which would eventually become the capital of Soviet Ukraine.
p 219: Of all the regimes and armies that fought in Ukraine in 1919, the Bolsheviks left the largest footprint and kept Kyiv in their hands longest—from February to August, and then again in December.
p 220: After the defeat of Denikin and the recapture of Kyiv in December 1919, the Bolsheviks decided to learn from their mistakes of the previous year. ¶ Vladimir Lenin himself spelled out the “lesson of 1919” for his followers. According to Lenin, the Bolsheviks had neglected the nationality question. Consequently, the Bolshevik army returned to Ukrain bin late 1919 and early 1920 under the banner of the formally independent Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic and tried to address the Ukrainians in their native language.

—Michael Z. 01:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to moving or merging. Srnec (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus that NONENG sources are sufficient for notability (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inma Puig[edit]

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

The only mention on this biography is that she was psychologist of Barcelona and nothing else. It may be WP:AB, clearly nothing to pass WP:ANYBIO. She has written some books, and she had some media coverage as psychologist of Barcelona, but without any kind of significant impact. Most sources are quite promotional-like, mainly because of her involvement with sports. Chiserc (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Psychology, and Spain. Chiserc (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of most prominent an maybe the most football psychologist, with many sources such as [38] from El Pais, one of Spain's leading newspapers... and [39] from Galicia's leading newspaper... Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I am not convinced on the notability of this psychologist, since most articles reflect a limited geographic scope (only Spain). In that sense, a Spanish-language Wikipedia version may be more suitable based on current sources. The source you mentioned is actually an interview, if I understood correctly, and, indeed, she is covered by media, but most sources I found are promotional-like coverage and nothing to validate clearly WP:GNG. Chiserc (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "interviews" have secondary coverage... Also I'm pretty sure using "most articles reflect a limited geographic scope (only Spain). In that sense, a Spanish-language Wikipedia version may be more suitable based on current sources" is an invalid and bizarre reason to delete an English wikipedia page... She is one of the most prominent if not the most prominent football psychologist... Article needs improvement, not deletion Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there's enough out there to show notability. Article needs an expansion/re-write to demonstrate this. Giant Snowman 18:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Spanish-language sources seem sufficient to show notability. Notability does not depend on language. If you can't check the sources available in a relevant language, ask someone to help, don't go to AfD. Telling people who object to your AfD to leave to Spanish Wikipedia is discriminatory and unhelpful. See WP:NONENG. Akakievich (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MangoO Microfinance Management[edit]

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

A blatant case of WP:BROCHURE, just a promotional piece to promote this software. Nothing is available as external source to validate any WP:GNG. Chiserc (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very PROMO, no sourcing for this piece of software other than download sites. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, obviously does not fit WP:NCORP Karnataka (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo ICT[edit]

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

The current format of the article is just a pure advertisment of a technology forum WP:IBA. While it receives some media coverage, it is not easy to find non-promotional information online in order to justify WP:IMPACT, WP:INDEPTH. Lacks of the most criteria of WP:EVENT. Chiserc (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Egypt. Chiserc (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, there is no coverage in press, just announcements of the event. Maybe there are non-English sources, but I can't check that. Artem.G (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nominator. Zero sources and coverage. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above Karnataka (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. New sources demonstrate notability (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khulna Shipyard[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG; Deletion recommended M.parvage (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Bangladesh. M.parvage (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many references can be found, such as this one: https://www.dredgingtoday.com/2022/02/18/khulna-shipyard-builds-four-dredgers-for-biwta/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is Press-release, fails WP:SIRS.

Thanks for understanding M.parvage (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some additional references. The article in Dredging Today is not a press release. It was written by a staff writer, Eldin Ganic, according to that web page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added three sources as well, including two that extensively cover the history of the shipyard. This is a situation where a good WP:BEFORE exercise could have been carried out before bringing the nomination. There are dozens of scholarly articles and even more web cites discussing this subject at various levels of detail. Even if notability was not obvious from the article as it stood several days ago, per WP:NEXIST notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.

Oblivy (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added to Talk:Khulna Shipyard half a dozen independent, reliable, secondary sources which demonstrate that that topic does meet WP:NCORP. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Diau[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-professional player who has not received significant coverage, the best is this which is fairly brief, primarily an interview, and certainly not enough on its own. Giant Snowman 12:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the BBC World Service piece, Eurosport article and fotboli article just about combine to get him over the notability line. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC piece is a 2 minute clip, the Fotboli is a routine transfer article. I have already said the Eurosport one is OK. Giant Snowman 16:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Besides the sources above and in the article, I found [40] and [41], among many more sources. Has ongoing career. why just trying to delete all of User:Dietermueller76's articles..., this article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are reliable sources - and where are the "many more" you mention? Giant Snowman 16:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GS. Neither of those are WP:RS. See First Time Finish and Exposport. Too much of a low bar for being able to write on those sites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Africa, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIGCOV Alvaldi (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear fails of WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Signed several professional Football Contracts. Is mentioned in Several News Articles. BBC one of English most known news outlets https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/63880346.amp

Germanys biggest Sport News Article next to sky https://11freunde.de/artikel/ich-schlief-auf-der-straße/3372492

and the links that were already mentioned. There are so many footballers on here with less coverage so dont understand the discussion Dietermueller76 (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the argument being made is that Diau does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That is a lot to read, so I will try to explain the problem myself.

First off, playing professionally doesn't mean you are entitled to an article. Secondly, just being mentioned in articles isn't enough to prove notability. He needs whole articles about him (he has a few, but most seem to agree they don't provide enough coverage).

The link your provided in 11 Freunde unfortunately doesn't help. It is an interview, so it is the subject's own words. We need to hear what other people are saying about him.

Finally, there are thousands or even millions of Wikipedia articles that need to be deleted because they are not notable. Many are nominated every day and this article is just one of them. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dietermueller76 Unfortunately neither is WP:SIGCOV as [42] is a match recap that trivially mentions him twice and [43] is a Q&A interview that has no independent prose. Articles of other footballers who fail WP:GNG should also be taken to AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage from reputable outlets.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The BBC clip is mostly primary (Diau speaking) with a few text overlays -- this is not SIGCOV in IRS. The Fotbolti piece is routine transfer news. We need more sources of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Alvaldi's source analysis above - much of the available coverage isn't from reliable sources, isn't secondary or isn't in-depth. The best coverage is probably from exposport, but there is no evidence that it qualifies as a reliable source, and we would need another piece of WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've given this a little more thought after initially saying keep. But looking at it again, I have to agree the sources I said were enough...well, they're not. I should have paid more attention to the BBC piece in the first place. One more piece of SIGCOV would be enough to get the article over the line IMO but we aren't there yet. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Sabrina the Teenage Witch#In other media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sabrina the Teenage Witch books, CDs and DVDs[edit]

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

Per WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTIINFO, it's not the job of Wikipedia to provide a comprehensive list of every single media that can ever be purchased. Ajf773 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Film, Literature, and Lists. Ajf773 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of various sorts of things are kept individually for various authors and franchises. The argument for deletion is, at best, an argument for breaking a comprehensive list into two or more specific lists, e.g. on books and TV/video. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is to keep none of it. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to the main article. Agree that this is mostly just cruft without justification for a whole standalone list, even combined. A sentence or two about the TV movies can comfortably fit there, and would be appropriate, especially since they link to specific articles for them. The season DVD release years could always be added to the existing table, but that's probably overkill, especially broken down by region. If sourceable, a note could be added that there have been a series of books written based on the series, but we don't need to be listing every single one of them. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe an expansion to a full list of media for the franchise could be an idea, for example something similar to List of Scooby-Doo media.★Trekker (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this isn’t the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, we’re a discriminate collection of knowledge. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This list fails NLIST given the context of NOTCATALOGUE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what? and to where? Ajf773 (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably to Sabrina the Teenage Witch, however I'm not sure. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sabrina the Teenage Witch - obviously fails GNG but I don't see the harm in having at the aforementioned article with cites. –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the TV movies, which already appear in the parent article, the rest appears to be fancruft. I don't know how knowing every single home video/DVD release for every region in the world, and their release dates, can possibly be encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it tells the reader more videos, books etc were released - Anyone reading the article now probably only believe a few or one were released when in fact over 40 odd were released –Davey2010^Talk 11:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sabrina the Teenage Witch#In other media, ideally with some cleanup and sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably the only stuff worth merging is the stuff that is already merged (the films). The rest of it is both unsourced and not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The problems are that the keep argument was refuted adequately, and the merge argument stalled because of a lack of a target article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth, Washington[edit]

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

This is technically the second deletion for this article, but the first was part of a group nomination of a group of rail sidings on the Hanford Site. This is for a different spot, but it isn't quite clear which of the two possibilities out of GNIS it could correspond to. It's possible that the article is conflating the two places since the less likely one (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Ruth, Washington in Benton County) had a wye and the otherwise more likely one (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Ruth, Washington in Lewis County) did not, but both of them appear to be otherwise uninhabited rail locations which as a rule we have not held notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This locale is only notable at a local level, given how minor a role it played in railroading in Washington State.TH1980 (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This rail loading point does not seem to have received direct in-depth coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 12:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources only mention it in passing and do not provide significant coverage for the station, nor do they call it a community as the article was created. Reywas92^Talk 14:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Article creator here...small wall-of-text coming!

When I began the page I based it as a community under two reasons - GNIS and census documentation. I was unaware of the WP:GNIS issues at the time, nor did I confuse it with the other Ruth in Benton county, and I did not include refs for census sources, as like GNIS, they seem to be rather contentious by some powerful editors here (not dependable, not independent). In a couple of Lewis County history books, Ruth is described as a community (back then...early 20th...one listing approx. 50 people) but nothing else...no expansion or definition of what they meant by "community". I never used those as sources because it was no more than what I found at newspaper archives. Overall, though, it seemed like it qualified to me. Maybe I've watched too many westerns...where there's a train station, there's people. But, ultimately I determined (basing it on the right, right, right words of editor MrX at the Susie, Washington deletion page) that if a place of population existed, it's notable.

Other editors differed and the page has had a slew of changes, bringing it back down to a rail station only. I disagreed with none of it, and still don't, because sourcing and expertise demanded it. I believe there was a community there at one point, but I agree, we gotta find more than a blurb. It has to be labeled a rail/transfer/loading station for now. I don't argue that.

So why, Keep? The place existed. I am a believer that as a repository of knowledge, Wikipedia has a duty to provide access to history whenever it can. Failing to include certain places can cause great harm as it begats a great disservice (especially to smaller areas and communities) by ignoring and intentionally leaving out history. This leads to certain communities and histories being forgotten. To me, that's an anathema to knowledge.

Okay, so how about Merge? Building off my above paragraph, let's not forget about Ruth. We can simply add a subsection to Lewis_County,_Washington#Communities, perhaps titled "Rail stations" or "Ghost rail stations" or "Let's not forget a place that existed". We transfer what is written here (relying on train depot/station experts to rewrite if necessary) and Ruth can be remembered.

The only other option I see would be for someone to create an article, say, "Washington state extinct rail stations" or something of the kind, adding Ruth's info to that.

Ultimately, Ruth, Washington existed. I get it...notability...notability...notability...but I have a long track record stating that placing a harsh rule on small, forgotten areas creates an undue burden that Ruth cannot reach. There is no Wall Street Journal report that I can find...there is no in depth book written by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr...there is no mention of it by Oprah.

But Ruth, Washington existed. We have an opportunity here to make sure it is not forgotten. And if in-depth notability is what is keeping Ruth from being remembered, as Reywas92 would agree (Ha!), it'd be a damn shame. Shortiefourten (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument you are making is WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE, which sometimes I think is not used enough on Wikipedia. Amongst all the thousands of borderline promo BLPs with three very marginal refs from obscure RS fighting for their prized Wikipedia notability (because Wikipedia is the most important plank of their notability), we do forget that this is an encyclopedia and that as a unique online encyclopedia, we can do things for society that a paper one cannot. And where there is no promo or fancruft involved, then the discussion should always include the concepts of NOTPAPER and PRESERVE. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:10, 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!} 05:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Shortiefourten - just need to find a proper merge destination. SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear, and a proper merge destination hasn't been found yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm stil not sure of the significance of this place, even if article creator's points are valid. Regardless, the subject does not fit WP:NPLACE, and I do not think the article should be given a special waiver of this notability guideline just for article creator's own sentimental value towards the station. I'd be fine to merge this into a list of former communities if such place to put the name can be found as long as it contains all other former/abandoned places in Lewis County like this one. Karnataka (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shishu Niketan Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution, no indication of Notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. There are some news articles mentioning the school, but they don't reach SIGCOV. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tripura. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL. DreamRimmer (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NSCHOOL.LibStar (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Many of the proposed sources are just passing mentions, which don't count for notability, but there is probably enough there to justify an article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Virella[edit]

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

No significant coverage in RS found (the operawire source is basically a quote from a press release) (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what RS is. I'm a fan of zarzuela. It is a somewhat obscure genre in the United States, both in the classical music circles and the musical theatre circles. The nominations (there were three of them for the show) and one win was an important moment for the genre, but was also barely mentioned in the Washington Post. This soprano has been pushing for more recognition of the genre for years, as well as other classical music in Spanish.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/theater-dance/2023/05/22/helen-hayes-awards-dc-theater/ SofiaAmudsen (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SofiaAmudsen I apologize for the jargon. RS means "reliable sources" that are not closely affiliated with the article subject. In order to keep the article it's necessary to have coverage of Virella in such sources. Unfortunately that can mean that some topics that are obscure or less popular are harder for us to cover. (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! I've learned something new. Here are some more mentions of her work in Spanish language music, from major lead newspapers in Puerto Rico:

https://www.elnuevodia.com/entretenimiento/cultura/notas/nuevo-album-de-canciones-clasicas-del-compositor-ucraniano-puertorriqueno-jack-delano/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1mJI6MrVhFvuYtf7QM8IMT3FEXgKdSqPYX3Njs-QnsuQ1VOpPFUU4MiwM#Echobox=1655070587

https://www.elvocero.com/escenario/ovacionan-su-frida/article_02bce5dc-73ea-11e7-8661-57d9fd3aab61.html

https://wipr.pr/lanzan-album-de-canciones-clasicas-del-compositor-jack-delano/

And about her work with Latin American subject-matter in classical music:

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/06/08/frida-kahlos-life-was-an-opera-so-why-not-turn-it-into-one/

https://dctheaterarts.org/2023/05/22/theatre-washington-celebrates-2023-helen-hayes-awards/

https://www.hoylosangeles.com/espectaculos/arteenla/hoyla-art-frida-kahlo-mantiene-su-vitalidad-y-su-rebeldia-en-esta-ambiciosa-opera-de-estreno-local-story.html

https://www.hoylosangeles.com/espectaculos/hoyla-art-frida-se-despidio-pero-no-sera-facilmente-olvidada-story.html

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/the-life-of-frida-kahlo-an-opera-waiting-to-happen/

https://dctheaterarts.org/2022/09/12/gala-delivers-a-daring-update-of-revoltosa-the-troublemaker/

https://www.presstelegram.com/2017/06/22/mexicos-wonder-woman-long-beach-opera-tells-the-tale-of-frida-kahlo/

http://culturespotla.com/long-beach-opera-presents-%E2%80%98frida%E2%80%99/

https://dctheatrescene.com/2011/11/18/luisa-fernanda-2/

As well as reviews for standard operatic performances around the world:

https://www.lavanguardia.com/20150720/54434003489/la-fe-fa-castells-jorge-de-persia.html

https://www.kleinezeitung.at/steiermark/graz/3967661/Eine-Banane-gegen-Lampenfieber

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-02-05-0202050131-story.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/4/20040604-075055-5822r/ SofiaAmudsen (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are other mentions of this singer's work:

LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-ca-list-0618-classical-20170618-story.html

LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-long-beach-opera-frida-review-20170618-story.html

Broadway World: https://www.broadwayworld.com/washington-dc/article/Review-REVOLTOSA-THE-TROUBLEMAKER-at-GALA-Hispanic-Theatre-20220919

Broadway World: https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Phillipa-Soo-Steven-Pasquale-Ali-Ewoldt-And-More-Nominated-for-Helen-Hayes-Awards-20230130

Quotes from press around the world, according to the artist's webpage: https://www.lauravirella.com/acclaim SofiaAmudsen (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Kirwan[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources; fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Antigua and Barbuda. JTtheOG (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- I manage to find these statistics [44] and this passing mentione [45] but not strong to prove notabilityEpcc12345 (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kaltak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 11 June 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) 04:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Sousa, M., and M. Silva. "Solitaire paper automation: When solitaire modern board game modes approach artificial intelligence." 22nd International Conference on Intelligent Games and Simulation, GAME-ON 2021. 2021.

[1]