Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 12	June 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

José Cardó Guarderas[edit]

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

Not a notable politician as per WP:NPOL, ran in a national election and came in 17th place. No sources, one external link to the candidates site. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Peru. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I PRODed this article but an IP editor removed the tag so I've brought it to AfD. I will openly admit that my Spanish is really bad so if there are non-English sources that meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL that pop up please ping me so I can withdraw this nomination. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It fails WP:NPOL. CastJared (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and I vote delete for the reasons above. You don’t get a Wiki article just for running in an election. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, fails WP:NPOL Karnataka (talk) 21:53, 20 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 01:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Chicago memorial day weekend shootings[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A normal weekend in Chicago. Last year's Labor Day weekend had virtually the same number of casualties. https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-labor-day-weekend-shootings-violence-crime/12203033/ Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Firearms, and Illinois. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a local story, not passing GNG or NEVENT. The shootings are multiple events on multiple days and other than them all occurring in Chicago that weekend don't have any relation to each other. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to be a series of random shootings over the long weekend, nothing related or targeted. Sigh. More gun violence. Oaktree b (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the article's talk page. Suggested (in the discussion) to move the title to the one that reflects the spike of violence in Memorial Day Weekend shootings in Chicago. I've been working on that and I am about to enter that information to highlight both 2022 and 2023 are higher than the previous few years' Memorial weekend casualties. Give me a minute. Petra0922 (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Updated the article (per the talk page discussion)- already added a section to show the historical trend and the surge in violence during the public holiday. I am proposing to move the article to, "Memorial Day Weekend shooting in Chicago". That way the scope is not limited to 2023, and could be expanded as events occur. Petra0922 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT, no WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV. I thought it was bad when people made articles for individual crimes simply because they were reported in the news. Now we're using this argument to make articles for individual crime statistics? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about crime surge during the Memorial Day Weekend holiday. Title can be moved. Petra0922 (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These accounts just trying to push the "Chicago is the worst place in the world" narrative (and 'all crime needs an article here') just need to stop already. These are hardly unusual crime statistics at all for a holiday weekend. 5/16 sources being local (a few to partisan or usergen sources) is beyond unacceptable. To add to TBUA's policy cites...WP:BLPCRIME, and a heaping helping of WP:OR; we should not be drawing conclusions from statistics on our own. They need sources. Nate • (chatter) 01:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot...WP:POINT. Nate • (chatter) 05:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article? The statistics are from Chicago Sun Times and also from Bloomberg. Petra0922 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bloomberg isn't a local source, and we tend to take a dim view of Fox News current day as a source, along with the Washington Examiner. Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least Merge with Crime in Chicago. Coverage about shootings trends over Memorial Day weekends commences before this 2023 event occurred. When the mayor's office and police start predicting shootings like weather forecasting, and start issuing safety warnings in advance, something else is happening in the public safety environment that I think Wikipedia should take note of. Rather than just react to crime, police in Chicago appear to be using historic statistics to predict when crime is going to occur and issue public safety warnings in anticipation of the crime occurring, or are taking other steps to prevent this crime happening. WP:SUSTAINED notes that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability and doesn't seem to recognize anticipatory coverage of an event that is yet to happen might be notable, once seen in the light of post-event coverage that the predictions were accurate. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why on this year in particular, and why should we even create a consensus for this every single year for every single holiday weekend in one city? A large city has much more crime than say, your Raytown, Missouri or Minot, North Dakota, especially on a holiday weekend. I hate to use this for crime, but for a large city, these stats are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and downright expected, and the only reason it's being written about more is there are non-local sources as mentioned above using trying to define their own narrative of Chicago, and the CPD itself has one to push (which is why neutral sources should be used over unquestioned police statistics from their or FoP's PR releases). We're as far from a Detroit Devil's Night or 1989 Miami riot situation where call-out is appropriate as possible. Nate • (chatter) 01:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I think you misunderstand the point I am trying to make. While having a healthy suspicion of the credibility of crime statistics is a good thing, the Chicago Police and Mayor's Office appear to believe they are sufficiently credible to issue public safety warnings in advance of this Memorial Day holiday weekend, and also employ a number of people, who are not Police officers, tasked with preventing crime. While the statistics might be run-of-the-mill, the policing approach is not. Perhaps the City of Chicago is applying some form of evidence-based policing in an attempt to prevent crime. Something different is happening here, compared to your run-of-the-mill police department. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:LASTING. Another typical day in gun-crazy America. There are shootings every day of the week there. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTNP. CastJared (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not constitute a notable event that will be remembered over time. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the record, it should be noted here that the factors influencing a keep versus delete at AfD are arbitrary, and to a decent extent unrelated to the importance of the topic, and to a large extent stupid. That is to say, Killing of JonBenét Ramsey is about a hundred thousand bytes, yet the US government says that in 1996 there were around a thousand homicide victims below the age of 12. So what the hell about the other 999 of them? The answer is that -- obviously the friends and family of the victims cared a whole lot about their children being murdered -- but nobody who ran a tabloid or a local news station cared, and because our society is a deranged hell carnival, being covered by tabloids and local news (and therefore attracting the attention of more people, and therefore being run above the fold in national papers and news networks) is what grants something notability. Here, we do not have this, so there is not really a sufficient basis for us to write an article about it. We live in a society: delete. jp×g 22:17, 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!} 23:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Tutu (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Devoke water 19:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BEFORE gives me results mainly on the namesake Karnataka (talk) 21:54, 20 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. This closure will allow for article restoration should this subject's notability become more evident. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank Shah[edit]

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

Nonnotable physician. Closest things to a claim of notability appear to be:

founded a surgery center, the Laparo Obeso Centre;
had some interesting patients, including "one of the youngest patients for bariatric surgery"; the heaviest British person; and the heaviest woman in Asia;
A few awards, non apparently significant enough to merit notability;
Has served as the president of three different medical societies in India relating to obesity.

None of these amount to notability; and having performed a WP:BEFORE search, I can find nothing more that suggests notability. TJRC (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC),[reply]
Comment Being president of three different medical societies relating to obesity might pass criterion 6 of WP:NACADEMIC if one of the societies is a "notable national or international scholarly society". Perhaps the societies in question don't count as notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds from your bullets above that you're already giving reasons for why some trimmed down version of this article should be kept. No idea why this needs to be deleted. Several independent sources about his work. Yes there are some self-published sources and other sections that should be deleted, but I don't understand the move the delete the whole article. — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. As I said above, none of the points I listed amount to notability. The fact that they can be put in bullet-point format doesn't make him notable.

(Although Eastmain makes a good point that if one of those medical societies is a "notable national or international scholarly society" he may meet WP:NACADEMIC. I'll leave that to the discussion. None of those societies has so far been deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article; but that's not conclusive.)

To be clear though, I nominated this article for deletion based on the lack of notability of the subject; not on the quality of the sourcing, which can always be cleaned up. TJRC (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - almost notable. I wish we could get some physicians to look at this.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:00, 20 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!} 23:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qais Khedri[edit]

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

Same sort of case as Ali Jan Faizi and Mohammad Fazel Bratyan. No sources found by searching in Persian (قیس خدری) or English. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, the latter clearly stating that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Devoke water 19:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any sources as per above. Karnataka (talk) 22:01, 20 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 Max Freeman. Merge any relevant content and then redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Freeman[edit]

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

The article at present is cited mainly to WP:TABLOID type press articles with reports of a messy divorce in "he said/she said" format. The obituary reports on a tragic death from a morphine overdose but provides no further biographical details. None of the sources cite anything specific about the subject's career as an actress (ie where she performed, parts she played, etc.). The article also has some rather humorous errors, such as calling "The Fencing Master" a company. It's a play adapted from the novel The Fencing Master which Max Freeman was working for as its stage manager on tour in 1893. In a WP:BEFORE search, which included google books, JSTOR, EBSCOE, and newspaper archives I could find zero mentions about this particular actress (no reference works, no reviews, not even advertisements), although a British actress of the same name who was alive later was in many sources. In short, there is nothing here demonstrating the subject meets WP:NACTRESS or WP:SIGCOV. On a side note, I have now started an article on her alleged husband (according to the sources cited in the Vera Freeman article he claimed they were never married in court) Max Freeman who was in reference works. Perhaps a redirect/merge to this article would be preferable per WP:ATD? However, I'm not sure that is even appropriate given that the later British actress did have a significant career and would be the more likely search term. 4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find anything about her career. As the nominator mentions, all the references are regarding a British actress who was working 15 or 20 years after her death. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - working 15 years after you die sounds pretty notable!!! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I also can find nothing about her career, but found multiple references on their separation, divorce, and her death. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Max Freeman. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:07, 20 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Bowie[edit]

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

WP:NN musician and guitar tech. While this guy may have worked as a tech with many big names, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. There are no sources in the article supporting these assertions either.

The only source I could find was a Madison.com article behind a paywall that I can't access. The article about his band was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Karlz.

CSD#A7 declined because someone saw some kind of an assertion of importance. Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn’t find any significant WP:RS coverage and this person appears to fail the WP:Notable test. Vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:02, 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 speedy delete‎. IAR. We are not wasting seven days on this. I also think it's a G5 but can't find the one who creates a lot of this for an SPI at the moment Star Mississippi 02:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balto IV: Wolf Destiny[edit]

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

The article subject doesn't appear to be notable in any way. All sources are either IMDB, or from the director. The only exception is a casting call. I have searched for sources and can only find listings about the original series (this article is about a fan-made film), some other wikis mentioning the project, and some paperback books. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan-made fanfiction; unless Amblin/Universal has suddenly given the rights to the Balto franchise to some random person to post their sequel on YouTube, this seems fake (the actual trailer is just RenderForest crud). Nate • (chatter) 20:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. The casting call is also from the director, so not independent. Squeakachu (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Speedy Delete I’m having trouble not saying something unnecessarily mean about this, but come on. It’s a fan fiction. For a minor film franchise, which only had one notable sequel. This is practically a WP:HOAX and definitely a case of WP:NOTMADEUP and should have been PRODded or even Speedied. Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trust me, I'm being kind when I say "Render Forest crud" and could've gone low. I was ready (and very thankful not to have) to blast whichever editor decided to move this from draftspace...only to find the creator just created it straight off in articlespace (though this mess from the creator got tossed to draftspace). Nate • (chatter) 01:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable, and probably non-existent, fan film. I suspect a WP:SNOW closure on this one. Rorshacma (talk) 02:13, 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 merge‎ to Corpus Christi Fury. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Corpus Christi Fury season[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. Only three games were played before the team ultimately folded with no explanation. At most, I found sources with a few sentences mentioning the team's disorganization like this or this. Not much on Newspapers.com, either. JTtheOG (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to to Corpus Christi Fury: The article doesn't pass WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG, as mentioned by the nom. Instead of outright deleting I'd like to propose it be merged to Corpus Christi Fury. Several other articles in Category:2016 American Indoor Football season were merged to the team articles in 2017 (though not through AfD). If not merge then I'd suggest a redirect to Corpus Christi Fury#Season-by-season. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:28, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Is (Brother Ali song)[edit]

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

NN single - fails WP:NALBUM UtherSRG (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. UtherSRG (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wikipedia should reflect notability, not be used to attempt to create it. Kablammo (talk) 10:05, 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. with encouragement to, as one participant stated, "beef up" this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teleflora[edit]

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

Seems odd that one of the largest floral delivery services have no or nearly no reliable sources to establish notability, but here we are. NN business. UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the coverage of the company's advertising is enough to establish notability. I added some relevant references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company is quite obviously notable. Sources need to be beefed up, that's all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of coverage of their ads (Teleflora ads are apparently a big deal in the ad world), so that establishes notability. There's some stuff that can be added to the article about how florists don't like them. Like UtherSRG, I'm surprised there's not other stuff, too. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:16, 20 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.

Bruce Rockowitz[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Actualcpscm (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Barrons source is the only one that covers him in detail. Other sources that I was able to locate only mention Rockowitz in passing, which is not WP:SIGCOV. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I think this is quite a clear case now, editors have found a great many sources on this person. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since most of the things that he did were while he was in Hong Kong, he may have decent coverage in HK sources - worth a look if anyone is confident doing a HK source search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uncontroversial keep per WP:GNG. @Actualcpscm: Looks like you need to get registered for Wikipedia Library, as you easily qualify. ProQuest immediately turned up a major feature article in South China Morning Post which I've now added to the article. (There are several sizeable paragraphs of prose / facts / commentary, even if we were to completely ignore the fact that the second half is a Q&A interview.) Sure, the article could be improved and brought up to date, and we should add more sources to it, but these are not grounds for deletion per WP:ATA. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Zhong, Isabella (2015-08-11). "Advantage Mr Rockowitz". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.
  The article notes: "As a former tennis pro, Global Brands CEO Bruce Rockowitz knows that having an accurate serve or a big forehand aren’t enough to win matches. A tenacious mind and a can-do attitude are just as important. ... For all his corporate commitments, Rockowitz remains committed to his passion for sports and fitness, and has even made a business of it. He is co-founder and chairman of Hong Kong-based fitness and yoga chain Pure International."
2. Sheng, Ellen (2016-02-11). "Bruce Rockowitz Wants Global Brands Group to Be a Fashion Force". Women's Wear Daily. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.
  The article notes: "Bruce Rockowitz seems an unlikely purveyor of American apparel brands. First of all, he’s Canadian. Secondly, he arrived in Hong Kong not as someone dreaming of breaking into the fashion world but as a semi-pro tennis player who decided to take a year off from college and kick around on the circuit before heading back to North America. But that year turned into more than 30, and Rockowitz’s tennis background led him into the apparel world, where his career trajectory propelled him to chief executive officer of Hong Kong-based sourcing giant Li & Fung."
3. Tsang, Denise (2011-06-25). "Well served by a change of game". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.
  The article notes: "He may have been born in Canada and raised in Boston, but after 32 years here Bruce Rockowitz sees himself as a Hong Kong native. Last month he was tapped to be president and chief executive officer of Li & Fung, the global trading concern. In hindsight, quips the 52-year-old, his purchase of an US$800 air ticket from Boston to Hong Kong in 1979 was the best investment he has ever made, his ticket to a career in supply-chain management. He also owns a 20-strong fitness and restaurant chain called Pure Group, which has outlets in Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and New York."
4. "Bruce Rockowitz named in offshore property deal probe". The Guardian. 2012-11-28. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via South China Morning Post.
  The article notes: "Hong Kong billionaire Bruce Rockowitz has been named by the Guardian as part of a major investigation into the use of offshore companies to obscure the real identities behind secretive British property deals. Rockowitz - president and chief executive of garment wholesalers Li & Fung, husband of pop star Coco Lee and one of Hong Kong's most successful expatriate businessmen - bought a luxury London flat and transferred it to an associate using an opaque offshore technique."
5. Leigh, David; Frayman, Harold; Ball, James (2012-11-26). "How secret offshore firms feed London's property boom". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.
  The article notes: "Another businessman, the billionaire chief executive Bruce Rockowitz, who runs the Hong-Kong-based garment wholesalers Li & Fung, bought a luxury London flat in Cadogan Square, Knightsbridge, and transferred it to an associate using an exceptionally opaque offshore technique."
6. Shenq, Stanley Lim Peir; Cheong, Mun Hong (2018). Value Investing in Asia: The Definitive Guide to Investing in Asia. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley. pp. 44–45. ISBN 978-1-119-39118-0. Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "L&F hasn't been shy with engaging external talent. In May 2011, Bruce Rockowitz took over from William Fung as L&F's CEO. Rockowitz had been an executive director of the group since 2001 and president since 2004. Rockowitz joined the group after a company he co-founded was acquired by L&F. And after the fourth-generation family member, Spencer Fung, took over as CEO of L&F in July 2014, Rockowitz was appointed as CEO of the newly listed Global Brands Group Holdings Limited."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bruce Rockowitz (simplified Chinese: 乐裕民; traditional Chinese: 樂裕民) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard sets out the policy and sources in great detail, and Cielquiparle has kindly expanded the article. Thank you to both. Edwardx (talk) 10:37, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Karmalker[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a film producer, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The attempted notability claim is a long, long list of awards and nominations, which aren't properly referenced for the purposes of establishing whether they're notability-making awards or not -- that test does not just indiscriminately accept every single film or television award that exists, but looks specifically for top-level awards (Oscar, BAFTA, César, top film festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-TIFF-Sundance tip, etc.) that can be established as significant by referencing the awards to media coverage that treats the awards as news.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the subject's own self-published website about himself, directory entries, streaming copies of his films on Vimeo, Instagram posts and the self-published websites of non-media organizations directly affiliated with the claims, with not even one reliable or WP:GNG-worthy source shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor references, GNG is not met. BoraVoro (talk) 05:37, 20 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandana Rao (actress)[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, not meeting ACTOR as roles are trivial. Youtube used for sourcing doesn't help the notability case either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TOI is unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES, fails to meet WP:NACTOR. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:16, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Taylor Wilsdon[edit]

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

Appears to be a practicing lawyer, all refs are for cases litigated by the individual. I can't find mentions of him outside of various court cases. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing beyond the sources in the article, none of which establish notability: links to his court cases, and promotional reviews on justia.com. I note that the article was created by an SPA. I suspect COI. Lamona (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 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 delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Asim Waqar[edit]

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

Spokesperson for the group he represents seems to not meet notability, for either politicians or GNG. Very PROMO with flowery language in the infobox as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable party functionary. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spokesperson for a party is not a role that confers notability. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:NPOL, the subject is just a functionary of a recognised state party. |Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)|[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 05:10, 20 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 List of Dead or Alive characters. No need to prolong. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christie (Dead or Alive)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christie (Dead or Alive)

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

Same as the other DoA character articles, a lot of quick mentions about her being sexy, followed by some bits that are more reviews for the movie itself. And please understand I'm not saying you can't focus on reception about a character being sexy...but there needs to be some back and forth, or at least some actual meaningful discussion about it. Otherwise it's just not enough, and this definitely fails SIGCOV. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 16:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters. Another Niemti article about a character that pretends to have reception but doesn't. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters. Another video game character with high quality coverage in articles such as Top 10 Gamer Babes. Doesn't have actual WP:SIGCOV ULPS (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these are the article equivalent of Breastaurants. Dronebogus (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per everybody above. I'm mostly responsible for the reception and while it was fun adding content about her movie appearance, it no longer cuts the mustard. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:38, 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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam North[edit]

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

Not meeting criteria for Academic or creative notability as a writer. Appears largely as PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple mentions of this page elsewhere on wikipedia. I can do some work adding citations tmcq (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author was nominated for a Booker prize and won the Somerset Maugham award. Seems pretty notable to me. tmcq (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- In addition to being longlisted for the Booker Prize, his novel The Unnumbered was reviewed in the Guardian[1] and the Independent[2], and the subject of an article in The Bookseller[3].
- His novel, The Old Country is reviewed in the New Zealand Herald[4], The Independent[5], the The Observer[6] and the Financial Times[7].
- His novel Chapel Street was reviewed in the Los Angeles Times[8] and Kirkus[9].
- His novel The Gifting Program was reviewed in The Independent[10].

Jahaza (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! tmcq (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure that longlisted for the Booker prize is enough, but I'm seeing lots of reviews of his work in the British press. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews listed above by Jahaza are enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per tmcq. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:29, 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. and there is support for a larger discussion of this and related subjects on an appropriate talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Si Bearing MRT station[edit]

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

This is one of a vast string of uninformative articles about stops on the Bangkok MRT system. I cannot see how any of these are notable- altho since my Thai is nonexistant I have not checked the sources. I changed all those I Came across to redirects to MRT (Bangkok) , but all these edits have been reverted, with the misleading edit summary 'fixing spam' Seeving a wider consensus...I'd bundle them all together, but things tend to go horribly wrong when I attempt this.TheLongTone (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Thailand. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, isn’t checking sources the number one thing to do before nominating for deletion? WP:BEFORE and all that. I don’t see how the article is “uninformative”. Garuda3 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources here. Clearly BEFORE hasn't been done. –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those news items are mere passing mentions where it's listed as one of the stations on the Yellow Line, without any in-depth coverage of specific stations. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've long been of the opinion that these run-off-the-mill station stubs are redundant clutter and the reader will be better served by redirecting them to the line article (which in this case should have been Yellow Line (Bangkok) rather than the MRT article). But this is a contentious issue, and more of an editorial question than one for AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With regards to deletion of an MRT station article, I feel its notability is significant. If we were to view this suggestion from another point, would it then not be fitting to delete all other articles on MRT/BTS or rapid transit stations and indeed not only for Bangkok's but for all other systems even outside Thailand? (KL, Singapore, Jakarta to name a few). Wikipedia is a community-driven encyclopedia by which, I hope, everyone can expand, especially on topics such as this that after all is informative and would prove useful.Sastravuth1786 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most probably. Out of interest I've had a look at a couple of articles about the London underground. Golders Green tube station looks deletion worthy; all the cites come from London Transport and the article basically tells you when it was built and where it is. Could be included in an article on the Northern Line. And I'm not even sure about Brent Cross tube station, although it probably scrapes by since it is a Grade 2 listed building (Likewise Tooting Bec). (I'm very dubious about the inherent notability of Grade 2 buildings, which is why Wikipedia does not have an article on my last home. The only article I came across was Highgate tube station, which has in interesting history.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yellow Line (Bangkok). The news sources I found regarding the station in this search only mention the station in passing, while other results consisted of property listings, maps and forum threads. As of now, the station just isn't notable enough for a standalone article, and coverage in the line article is sufficient, but I believe it would be a valid search term. R22-3877 (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please note that I am not argueing that the MRT system is not notable, merely that there is no presumption that individual stations are noteworthy. I would also point out that none of the articles I redirected contained any real content, simply the location and number of platforms. I would also urge those 'voting' keep to read WP:OTHERSTUFF; the fact that other similar articles exist is an argument for their deletion rather than the inclusion of the similar article TheLongTone (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a unwritten convention that open metro stops get their own articles. Even on very large systems. Every London Underground station, every New York City subway station, every Paris Metro station, every Shanghai Metro station, every Beijing Subway station etc has an article. A metro stop is inherently more notable and permanent than say a bus stop. And there are sufficient transport geeks like myself around the world who like to keep these kind of transport articles up to date. I don't think it is worth Wikipedia:Opening up a can of worms over this. Matthewmayer (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of an article- like those under discussion here and several of th eLondon Underground articles- which contain absolutely zero content Its a station, it has platforms, trains stop there. D U L dull.TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be shocked if you could get any operating London Underground or British railway station article deleted. Garuda3 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Rs chen 7754 18:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Per which argument above? Garuda3 and Davey2010's arguments that sources exist have been rebuked, Sastravuth1786 only said WP:other stuff exists, and Matthewmayer's is more an WP:IAR argument than based in any policy. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  ...why does it matter? This comes off as WP:BLUDGEON. Rs chen 7754 05:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It matters because the point of AfD is to discuss and share opinions on why an article should or should not be deleted. It would better help the closer gauge consensus if participants made their reasoning clear rather than just voting per majority. But if you disagree, no need to reply. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - This has been discussed in great detail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_65#Request_for_comment_on_train_station_notability and while there's no consensus for a blanket "all stations are notable" rule, in general it seems that mainline rail stations, and extant metro/subway stations, generally always survive AFD nominations. The debate centres more around things like closed request stops, heritage railways, stations on proposed lines etc. Matthewmayer (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Start a proper discussion that covers this and all stations on the Yellow Line, either as a new AfD or a centralised discussion to merge/redirect. This AfD singling out a single station was not the proper venue to address the issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the correct place to discuss this would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations) (note this is an essay not a policy, and doesn't really reflect what happens in practice at AfD) - personally I'd be happy to see updated guidelines similar to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) that define certain types of train stations which can be assumed to be notable Matthewmayer (talk) 03:49, 20 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Macedonia–Peru relations[edit]

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

Article is largely based on 1 source. The topic of these relations does not receive significant coverage in multiple sources. Relations don't include aspects that typically add to notability like embassies, 1 high level visit in 17 years of relations, significant trade (Peruvian exports to the state have been nonexistent in the years 2009, 2012, 2014 and 2016.) or migration LibStar (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, North Macedonia, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm posting here too just in case, but I've added some more information that hopefully benefits the article. (both this and the Montenegrin article). Cheers. 180app (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing WP:SIGCOV of this topic in independent WP:RSs. Yilloslime (talk) 17:44, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro–Peru relations[edit]

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

Article is largely based on 1 source. The topic of these relations does not receive significant coverage in multiple sources. Relations don't include aspects that typically add to notability like embassies, state visits, significant trade or migration. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Montenegro, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added some information from other sources, I would appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know if this will suffice for this and the Macedonian articles. Cheers. 180app (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing evidence of WP:SIGCOV of this topic, either. Yilloslime (talk) 23:51, 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 14:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bashu nationalism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mainly notability and verifiability. POV article based on a single source with little English language coverage findable apart from WP. Also, if the article survives AfD, it may need to be renamed. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and China. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a relevant discussion at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Asia/Archive 1. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV and non-notable. As a native Chinese speaker, checking the Mandarin Chinese WP page and online sources show that this is not a movement in any real sense, but one hypothetical nation out of many as part of one person's fringe concept of balkanizing China. The single main source on the page (titled China’s intellectual dark web and its most active fanatic) makes that clear, but the WP article makes no mention of its marginal online-only presence and its position as politically "extreme" for its "racial theory and shaky history". Even if these POV issues were fixed, it would just reveal how the topic is non-notable. A page on Liu Zhongjing, the main proponent of the ideology, would make more sense, although an article was created on him and deleted for NN a while ago. --LatakiaHill (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashu nationalism participants: Noob282 (talk · contribs), Abcmaxx (talk · contribs), AAAAA143222 (talk · contribs), Bearian (talk · contribs), and 4meter4 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was what I was trying to say when originally nominating this article for deletion, because even the terms "Bashu nationalism" and "Basuria" usually have no results besides Twitter accounts with strange maps about balkanizing China most of the time if it is related to this topic.

Noob282 (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Basuria Nothing has changed from the 1st AfD other than the article has been gutted by single-purpose or random user accounts. The key is to improve the article and perhaps protect it, otherwise we set a precedent for other controversial topics; remove enough citations over time and it will get deleted. However this seems to be more of a hypothetical and fringe theory rather than an established movement so Basuria would be a better title. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could be renamed to Auntology too (the nickname of the ideology according to this SupChina article^[1]) AAAAA143222 (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still lean delete because a hypothetical and fringe theory at this scale seems undue weight, but renaming it to either the broader ideology or to the founder works too I think. LatakiaHill (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://supchina.com/2019/03/13/chinas-intellectual-dark-web-and-its-most-active-fanatic/

Delete, because there's almost nothing (reliable sources) about the topic. If not, it can be renamed or merged with some page. AAAAA143222 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename to broaden the scope?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not seem to meet GNG. The sources currently in the article consist of:
1. A map with no indication of reliability or independence as far as I can see.
2. An article from The China Project about Liu Zhongjing, which mentions his "Basuria" proposal.
3. An article from the Hong Kong Free Press about Liao Yiwu which briefly mentions his hope for Sichuan independence in the context of his "dream...that China splits up into 10 or so countries".
4. A Yahoo News article about Yu Jie which briefly mentions Sichuan independence in a list of other independence movements, but does not say anything else about it.
5. A Radio Free Asia interview with Liu Zhongjing which has the hashtag "Bashu independence" but doesn't say anything else about it in the text (I haven't listened to the audio).

Essentially we have only one substantive source (The China Project), and even that one is really about Liu Zhongjing overall; it's not focused on his "Basuria" idea. The sources that are not about Liu have brief allusions to Sichuan independence but not significant coverage. Some other sources have been removed from the article in the past for being unrelated to the subject.

The best hope of finding a notable topic here seems to be Liu Zhongjing, who is covered a bit more in RSs – but even the article about him was deleted a few years ago. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:47, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POP Telecom[edit]

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

Article about a company not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP. As always, every company on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and has to earn passage by virtue of having reliable source coverage about it in sources independent of itself. But existence is the only notability claim on offer here, and there are no reliable sources being cited to support it at all -- and while it was recently stubbed down from a longer version, that was semi-advertorialized, still made no stronger claim of notability, and was referenced solely to a routine business directory that isn't a WP:GNG-worthy source.
Nothing here, either in the current version of the article or in any past diff that I've viewed in the edit history, is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have proper referencing. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 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 14:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Hradecky[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for diplomats. As always, diplomats are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and must be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about the significance and impact of their work -- but this is "referenced" entirely to content self-published by Global Affairs Canada (i.e. her own employer) rather than any evidence of third parties writing about her as a subject. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kenya, Vietnam, United Arab Emirates, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage I found in gnews merely confirms her role but it's not WP:SIGCOV about her that would meet WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:46, 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 14:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De Marchena (Surname)[edit]

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

Part of a larger hoax / self-promotion? While the surname "De Marchena" exists, most of the info in this article seems very dubious, and the same editor (and others) have been pushing De Marchena's and Van Marchena's left and right, without much if any evidence.

For this article, I can find no evidence that either of the notable members either existed (Francisco de Marchena) or was called "Van Marchena" (Georg Altner is listed with the surname Van Marchena in the infobox, after an IP added this in late 2022[11]). There is also involvement of User:Freddydemarchena, who added spurious De Marchena's to an article in April 2022[12] (still present in current article), Draft:Freddy De Marchena (was in mainspace, created by same editor as this surname article, who also edited the Georg Altner article). The page Marisol (actress) also used to list unverifiable De Marchena's. All in all, something very fishy, and best to just get rid of this page completely. Fram (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. There is no good sourcing here and no indication of meeting WP:GNG.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Netherlands and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found this as Commons CU looking into uploader's socking and hoax nonsense there--see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BrennaKaufmann and c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Talon Briceington. This appears more of the same, intended to concoct a false pedigree for Draft:Freddy De Marchena (note, for example, that "Freddy De Marchena" is the same person as the ficticious Lord Mäerzenfeld proffered by sock BrennaKaufmann). Эlcobbola _talk 19:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia oh goody! Another hoax captured for the museum! Shame it wasn’t a Quazer Beast, though. Dronebogus (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One section, "Notable Members," is entirely unsourced and/or original research. Neither of the two people mentioned in this article have significant coverage of them using this surname, and the latter's name is actually Ernst Georg Altner, not de Marchena, as this user claims. Possibly a candidate for speedy deletion under category G3 for being a hoax as the nominator mentioned. HarukaAmaranth (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Pichpich (talk) 00:15, 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 14:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Guidnce[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Lack of WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NBAND, although that's not to say that we can't re-create in the future. --wooden superman 12:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 12:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very PROMO. There is some traction [13], it's way TOOSOON for this group. If they hit it big, we can revisit. Just not notable at this point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now) - This one is closer than it looks, because they have introductory stories in some reliable music magazines, such as [14] (already cited in the article), [15], [16]. This indicates a massive record company/management effort if anything. For now it is WP:TOOSOON but I agree with the folks above that the article could be revisited later, IF that promotional push leads to real world results. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Definitely TOOSOON. If the article is correct about that Capitol Records signing then they'll probably get more attention later just from the amount of promo that label can afford putting it in front of critics' eyes. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are standard new-release hype, not indicative of any kind of accomplishment other than existence with a promotional budget. TOOSOON at best. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:27, 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 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 12:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Strutt[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPOSER, though the guts of this article may be suitable for articles about the composer's works. UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 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 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 12:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jones![edit]

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

Completely fails WP:GNG in any sense of the guidelines without question. After some searching, I couldn't find any reliable sources that would support its notability, not to mention the article itself has no sources. It's just not a notable TV channel, end of story. Kuchi Kopi (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's just a channel of acquired programming. Not even sure if it worth a redirect. Ajf773 (talk) 10:54, 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 12:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stark[edit]

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

NN voice actor, fails WP:BIO UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Video games, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any decent sources to meet the GNG threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, actors do not pass WP:NACTOR just by having roles, they pass NACTOR by receiving reliable source coverage and analysis about their performances in media. But there's no evidence of that being shown here — and while I did find one 15-year-old article about him in his hometown paper by using "actor" as a search key to filter out hits on his unrelated namesake, one article isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 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 redirect‎ to Take to the Skies. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry You're Not a Winner/OK Time for Plan B[edit]

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

NN single, fails WP:NALBUM. Either of the songs may be notable, but the single doesn't appear to be. UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. Virtually devoid of sourced content, not a noteworthy chart performance. Sergecross73 msg me 12:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Take to the Skies as {{R from song}} per WP:ATD. ✗plicit 14:12, 20 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Son of Man (book)[edit]

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

NN book. Fails WP:NBOOK. UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I'm finding a ton of blog sources that mention this text in esoteric circles, so clearly people are (or were) very interested in this subject. However, the only reliable source I see is the the Routledge book already referenced in the article (and even that is an intentionally trivial mention). ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Fauntleroy, Gussie (1998-12-27). "Exploring a mystic, revolutionary Christ". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Son of Man is a book to approach with an open mind and heart, and to absorb slowly and thoughtfully. Far from being scholastic, dry and inaccessible, however, the author's beautiful- ly articulate and poetic style makes it a pleasure to read, even when its concepts challenge our much-repeated accounts of the historical and mystical Christ."
2. Klein, William R. (1999-03-21). "Fantasy masquerades as Christian theology". The Roanoke Times. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Reading Andrew Harvey's book is like returning to your home town after a week's absence and discovering that someone has changed all the street signs and painted all houses a different color. Harvey uses all the familiar words and events of the New Testament: the transfiguration, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and putting to death the old self in order to follow "the mystical path to Christ." But neither the Jesus he depicts nor the faith he defines looks like anything a Christian would recognize in broad daylight. ... If you want fiction and religious fantasy, you may be willing to waste $24 on this book. But if you want credible religious reading, you can find a hundred and one ways to better spend your money."
3. Moore, Ken (1998-12-27). "New books confront age-old questions of God ... and man". Naples Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "In "Son of Man," Harvey presents an array of sources to sketch a compelling portrait of Jesus Christ as a spiritual practitioner who lived 2,000 years ago. Christ, he insists, was the son of God the mother, as well as God the father. Harvey constructs a new vision of Christ as ecumenical, based on what the author considers accurate historic references."
4. Johnson, Toby (Fall 2003). "The Mysticism of Andrew Harvey". White Crane Journal. No. 29. pp. 24–25. EBSCOhost 12125417.
  The review notes: "In Son of Man: The Mystical Path to Christ, Harvey demonstrates the kind of work and world transformation he has called gay people to perform. Son of Man is not a gay book as such, but it clearly exemplifies the enlightened, mystical message that comes from the mystical marriage in the gay soul. For Son of Man is a sensible, modem explication of the life and teachings of Jesus free of the usual self-serving spin the Christian Churches give the story."
5. Bowser, Eugene O. (1998-11-01). "Book Reviews: Arts & Humanities". Library Journal. Vol. 123, no. 18. p. 90. EBSCOhost 1239383.
  The review notes: "Harvey includes spiritual exercises, drawn from "early Christian traditions of mantra," medieval mystics, Gnosticism, and his own experiences. A well-thought-out book by a skilled writer that will interest mystics and New Agers."
6. "Son of Man: The Mystical Path to Christ". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 245, no. 39. 1998-09-28. p. 93. EBSCOhost 1116716.
  The review notes: "Harvey, who is gay, emphasizes Jesus' androgyny, describing it as his "complete combination of feminine and masculine powers, of mercy with justice, tenderness with force, authority with the radiance of tolerance and forgiveness." With soaring mystical conviction, Harvey asserts that it is only by fully welcoming the force of the Sacred Feminine, as Jesus did, that the contemporary religious imagination can experience the birth of true Christ-consciousness, "an all-embracing, all-infusing power that could, if allowed to, transfigure the life of the world." Unabashedly personal and passionate, Harvey's latest is a powerful expression of faith in the transforming power of Christ's love."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Son of Man to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cunard's sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion which includes secondary coverage such as reviews of the book in newspapers and magazines so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 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. ✗plicit 12:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulay Zeynalli[edit]

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

not a notable artist; fails GNG. In my opinion, the article was utilized to get the verification badge on social media. All three of them has been created by the same user — Toghrul R (t) 12:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Toghrul R (t) 12:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Azerbaijan. — Toghrul R (t) 12:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Toghrul R (t) 10:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't judge the quality of the sources, appears somewhat PROMO though. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Non-notable local artist. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:18, 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 12:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U-Night[edit]

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

PROD objected with no explanations and improvements. This article fails GNG as I don't see any coverage. No significance seen. Timothytyy (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Timothytyy (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unless the article is significantly improved meeting GNG standards, I'm leaning towards redirect to Victory (church) and integrate relevant content under a new subsection.~~ -Ian Lopez @ 14:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you find any useful information in the article that warrants a section on Victory (church)? Timothytyy (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gave the article another glance, it shouldn't have been created in the first place as there is no useful information that can be added to the Victory (church) article. Changing vote to Delete. -Ian Lopez @ 16:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing useful to merge. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a non-notable local church event. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seriously? You might as well allow, say, any American church's Halloween party to have an article. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:26, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polyanthos (magazine)[edit]

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

Appears to be a short-lived regional literary magazine. Nothing much on the page which suggests it had lasting notability, i don't see much else. JMWt (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Massachusetts. JMWt (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For one thing, the nom's failed to express a valid deletion ground. There is nothing, in fact, about a magazine being literary, regional OR short-lived that's a prima facie deletion ground. Further, notability is not temporary. To quote WP:NTEMP, "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Such coverage is established in this well-sourced article. Finally, when I see vague phrasings in a nomination such as "appears to be" or "i [sic] don't see much else," it leads me to wonder whether a nom has performed due diligence as per WP:BEFORE. Ravenswing 15:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see these discussions as a way that we can all establish a consensus on the topic together. As it happens, I looked but could not find references which show notability, which I took to be because it was a regional and short-lived publication. Perhaps others can find something to discuss, in which case the consensus may well show that I'm wrong.

In my view you haven't supplied sources or a reason to !keep which to me looks like WP:ILIKEIT.

If I'm wrong, kindly show how and why so we can have an actual discussion about it. JMWt (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That you haven't advanced a valid deletion ground is rationale enough, but that I believe it to be a well-sourced article is a reason to keep all of itself. Ravenswing 18:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well we will have to agree to differ: brief and passing mentions do not meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable early American magazine. In addition to the citations already in the article, I found sources referencing this magazine in the book Magazines and the Making of America Modernization, Community, and Print Culture, 1741–1860 by Heather A. Haveman, 2020, Princeton University Press; in the scholarly article "Buckingham's Musical Commentaries in Boston" in New England Quarterly. Sep1978, Vol. 51 Issue 3, p333-347; in Connecticut Biographical Dictionary by Caryn Hannan, 2008, State History; Publishers Weekly, Volume 119, Part 1, 1931; and other books and journals. In short there's enough coverage of this magazine to prove notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the formatting of the article and added the citation from Publishers Weekly, which states that the incident with the father and mother of Edgar Allan Poe "merits at least footnote immortality" for the magazine. That's as close as a century-old source can get to confirming a subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing substantial coverage in independent RS as per the WP:GNG - several of the references on the page are passing mentions (and I note that I've found others which simply say that the publication reprinted something from elsewhere). The Poe story is interesting but is from a memoir by the publisher so not independent. The Publishers Weekly is independent and whilst apparently forward-thinking in terms of usability for a future encyclopedia (describing something as an eternal footnote), is a passing mention in a trade publication in an article about the publisher (the format of the reference on the WP page is not great, the direct link to the source on IA is here [17]) and is based on an anecdote in the memoir above as far as I can tell. It's not nothing, but it isn't substantial coverage either. JMWt (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm seeing a ton of sources and references to this magazine and I've now added additional citations, plus more info, to the article. After additional research on this topic, I'm even more convinced the cumulative weight of all of the sources referencing the magazine proves notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit that I am not able to review most of the sources here (and would not have discovered them with a Google search) but seeing that SouthernNights has found this magazine listed in a handful of bibliographies covering the time frame, and was able to add enough information to fill out the article, I accept this as notable. Lamona (talk) 22:38, 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) JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Bilgin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, with both sources linking to the website of a soccer team. Any sources online were just statistics. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Germany, and Turkey. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would recommend withdrawing this nomination. The player had a long career in professional football, players of this calibre don't fail WP:GNG. I found two usable German newspaper articles through a quick web search and added them to the article, I'm sure there's more in Turkish. Coverage from before 2010 is likely to be found through offline resources. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely stuff here, mistake on my part, and I will withdraw this. I think I made a typo that may have affected my search. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would be very surprised if someone who made 60+ appearances including Champions League for one of the best supported teams in Turkey would not be notable, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. For instance [18] [19] [20] came up very early in the source search - the UEFA link isn't really sigcov, but his transfer was important enough to be on the UEFA website, for instance. SportingFlyer T·C 09:23, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Jesus School, Thiruvambady[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, has been unsourced since creation. I couldn't find any reliable sources for the article. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Kerala. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 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. ✗plicit 14:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and children[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has both exceptionally low quality and doubtful notability. The maintenance tags are a decade old, raising rightful questions about the mass of online religious Q&A and primary source references that furnish much of this page. There is meanwhile precious little evidence that "Islam and children" is a serious standalone topic in secondary sources - certainly none of the sources listed in the bibliography are specifically geared towards the subject. More generally, the scope of the articles seems unusual and potentially misguided. Unusual because "X religion and children" is not an article type I see repeated anywhere else. Misguided because it pertains to social conventions, which have their agency at the level of any given society, e.g. a country or cultural group. Of the little, if any material that is supported/relevant, i.e. religious precepts around family life, there is none that would not be better supported at Islamic family jurisprudence, so I would say delete or merge to that page. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did wonder whether this article might have been original research, but having had a look at it, it seemed a thoroughly comprehensive and well-researched article. YTKJ (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least half of it is attributed to unreliable online religious sources - and this accounts for almost all of the material that is unique to this page, i.e.: the "Rights of children" and "Rights of parents" sections. The following parts, Marriage in Islam and Islamic adoptional jurisprudence have their own articles and just duplicate here. Overall, it's a bit of a WP:COATRACK that pulls together fairly disparate and tangential subjects under the umbrella of "children" in a manner not obviously done by any secondary or tertiary reference material. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a child article that covers a notable aspect of Islam as well as Religion and children. If it needs cleanup, then clean it up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a child article of either of those pages. And it's not a topic in its own right that is qualified as such in secondary literature. There are aspects of Islamic family jurisprudence that pertain to children, but it's not really its own thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some books about various aspects of the topic. This is in addition to whatever might exist in Arabic or any other language with a significant Muslim population.
The Child in Islam

Guidelines For Raising Children

Children of Islam

Children in the Muslim Middle East

Growing Up Between Two Cultures

Making European Muslims
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly, a notable subject; there are multiple books about it. Fix it; no reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 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 14:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monash Student Association[edit]

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

Article mainly reads as promotional and I was unable to find any sources establishing notability. Mainly mentioned in passing (student association president comments, etc.) in news articles about the university. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. AllyD (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage seems to be about someone saying something on behalf of the organisation, but no WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, this is PROMO. Non-notable organization. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to the university I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 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 04:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Jesus School, Saharanpur[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 15 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, unsourced. On a side note, I feel bad for the kids that have to say they went to "Infant Jesus". JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced, and even searching Google turned up nothing that supports WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:27, 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!} 08:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Humpty Dumpty (magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable publication formerly redirected to the Saturday Evening Post. Dronebogus (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Children's magazine published since 1952, with Wikipedia article since 2010 (it was briefly redirected to Saturday Evening Post, but was a separate article most of the time). Magazine has a history under other owners. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references, including two academic references that didn't speak highly of the 1980s version of the magazine. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Indiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are a number of mentions of it in scholarly articles over the years which would support an article - more than just the criticism section of the page - and possibly more mentions in newspapers. It's not the most notable thing in the world but I think there's just enough for an article. I've cleaned up some of the promotional wording in the article as well. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this is a well-read children's magazine in the US. I read this when I was a little kid. This is sold all over the United States. Worldcat listings.— Maile (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That vote rationale sounds like WP:ITSPOPULAR mixed with WP:ILIKEIT Dronebogus (talk) 08:46, 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 03:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 West Virginia High School Boys' Soccer (AAA)[edit]

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

Non-notable high school sports competition. Only press coverage is simply reciting scores from the tournament. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and West Virginia. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High school sports seasons are rarely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer. Giant Snowman 18:28, 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 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Tilus[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, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, ~~American football~~, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 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 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desroy Findlay[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 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 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Solomon[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 to satisfy WP:GNG. This is the best I could find. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 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 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kemar Scott[edit]

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

One international appearance for the Cayman Islands national football team. Unable to find sufficient coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 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 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Suberan[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources. There were a few passing mentions, but the subject fails WP:GNG in my opinion. JTtheOG (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:27, 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 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tex Whitelocke[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is the most I could find. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 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 merge‎ to List of Dead or Alive characters. No need to prolong (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi (Dead or Alive)[edit]

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

Most of the reception is trivial at best, and some honestly a bit questionable. No signs of SIGCOV, and no real commentary about her as a character. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters. There are quite a few video game articles like this, fairly indepth WP:FANCRUFT with questionable sourcing (some highlights in this one include Top 10 Sexiest Female Video Game Characters and Top 10 Babes in Games). Decently written, but just no real WP:SIGCOV. ULPS (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters. Niemti created numerous articles solely due to sex appeal of characters and this one is no exception, there's no evidence is notable or passes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Stuff like "sexiest character" should not indicate importance without a really good justification like it being integral to their character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - No SIGCOV, just a ton of vapid, cherry-picked cruft about sex appeal. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Another character that pretends to have reception. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I stand by my statement that boobs are not notable. All the women in DoA are hot, okay? Nobody cares. This is practically WP:ROUTINE coverage of the franchise. Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even calling it ROUTINE is generous. It reads more like someone just searched for every passing mention on the internet and forced it into the article without regard for importance or significance... Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The reception is mainly one-off comments about the character without any depth. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing comments about the character… ‘s breasts. Dronebogus (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Lacking sigcov. Too bad, I like her design. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:48, 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.

[1] ttps://supchina.com/2019/03/13/chinas-intellectual-dark-web-and-its-most-active-fanatic/

[1]