Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 06 June 08 >

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 merge‎ to People's Democracy (Ireland). After three re-lists, not enough consensus to keep it as a standalone article, but a consensus that the material should be preserved in the predecessor party article. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Democracy (Ireland)[edit]

Socialist Democracy (Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was created in 2005 and has barely been advanced since then. When the article was created in 2005, the creator themselves noted the organisation had "less than 10 members" [1]. One can only guess if it has any members left almost 20 years later. Besides not being notable/significant, the entire article is based on one primary source, a website/blog that has managed to continue. Other than that "official" website, there is (seemingly) no other source available on the entire internet, reliable or otherwise, that discusses the subject. This is (seemingly) the only other source [2] for their existence; holding two documents relating to the organisation.

Per WP:GNG, I don't think the subject article has significant coverage, nor reliable sources, nor secondary sources, nor sources really independent of the subject (The left archive source is really two pieces of primary material rather than secondary). I don't know that the article can be much improved since I don't see any coverage at all in secondary sources.

The article claims it stood a candidate in the 2011 Northern Ireland Assembly election, however, sources do not support this claim [3], [4], even though they go into minute detail and note that a "Pro Capitalism Party" gained 28 votes. CeltBrowne (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article was created in 2005 and has barely been advanced since then. For the record: There are countless revisions throughout the article's history with at least one edit per year, in most cases many more than that. The phrasing used here makes the impression that the article has almost never been edited besides its author, which is not the case. In fact, it seems that after Laurel Lodged made a series of edits on May 20, 2018, the article has seen significantly increased attention and since grew from around 3,600 bytes to over 7,000, faster than the article has grown in its entire history.WhichUserAmI 20:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the predecessor political party I suppose, the current group isn't terribly notable, never having won a seat in an election. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the current status of Socialist Democracy as a functioning organisation, as the successor to Peoples Democracy - an undeniably important group in the Civil Rights movement and the Troubles - SD must be accounted for in the historical record. Don Meade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blarneystar (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but without sourcing to back that up, it's all good wishes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as inherently encyclopedic. I favor the lowest of all hurdles for inclusion of articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. Carrite (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, sourcing does not seem sufficient for a standalone, but the material can easily be covered in another article. JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 3 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! 00:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with People's Democracy (Ireland): The successor does not appear to be notable enough to get its separate article as there is a lack of English and Irish reliable sources about the movement. Vacant0 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the predecessor, Karnataka (talk) 17:11, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian–Greek Border War[edit]

Albanian–Greek Border War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a POV and OR coatrack. This supposed war is nothing more than sporadic border clashes during the Operation Pyrsos (2-27 August) of the Greek government troops against the communist guerrillas in the Grammos-Vitsi area. The objective of that operation was to destroy the Greek guerrillas and push them back into Albania, from where they received support.

There were some border crossings by battalion-level Greek units that led to clashes, but the article is written as if Greece invaded Albania deliberately ("Albania regains all lost territories", listing the full strength of the Greek army, supported by the US/UK, as if directed against Albania, the choice of titles like 'Border War' or 'First Battles' implying a sustained conflict etc.). In fact, the article fails to heed its own sources: Mourelos 2007 explicitly calls the 'Battle of Vidohovë' an "episode". It is also telling that the rest of the quote from the same source is omitted: "Ύστερα από αψιμαχίες με αλβανικές ένοπλες δυνάμεις , οι Έλληνες στρατιώτες υποχώρησαν χωρίς να πάρει μεγαλύτερες διαστάσεις το επεισόδιο , το οποίο , ωστόσο , θορύβησε τα Τίρανα. Για τον λόγο αυτό , η αλβανική κυβέρνηση με αλλεπάλληλα διαβήματα προς τον γενικό γραμματέα του ΟΗΕ, Τρίγκβε Λι, διαμαρτυρήθηκε έντονα για τις « ελληνικές προκλήσεις » στην ελληνοαλβανική μεθόριο." ("After skirmishes with Albanian forces, the Greek soldiers retreated without the episode taking on greater proportions, however it alarmed Tirana. For this reason, the Albanian government, with repeated demarches to the UN General Secretary, protested about the 'Greek provocations' on the Greco-Albanian border"). It is equally telling that even a communist-era source (#1) explicitly calls them "des provocations monarcho-fascistes de 1949", i.e. not a war.

Two out of three sources (Mara 1963 and Konferenca Kombëtare e Studimeve Shoqërore 1970) used to cite that Greece was backed by the US and UK and had a "clear war plan" are communist-era publications which I cannot verify, but are inherently not RS. The only RS cited here is Studies in the history of the Greek Civil War, 1945-1949, but without author, chapter, or page. I have the book, and looked up every mention of Albania, and found nothing. So one count of apparent source falsification as well. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Can't find any other references to this war as a real thing outside of Pyrsos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugrak (talk • contribs) 13:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear members of the discussion panel,
Today, I would like to propose the deletion of the article "Albanian-Greek Border" for debate. Although I advocate for keeping both articles, I would like to discuss the reasons for the deletion first.
One argument for deleting this article could be that they may not be relevant enough to be listed in an encyclopedia like this. Some might argue that the events in question are local conflicts that do not hold significant historical importance.
Another argument could be that the information in these articles may not be sufficiently verified. Particularly when sources from the communist era are used, their credibility could be called into question. There is a possibility that these sources are politically motivated or biased.
However, I would like to emphasize that I personally believe this article should not be deleted. First of all, Me and Based.Shqiptar.from pirok have utilized many sources to create these article, including those from the communist era. I believe this allows for a balanced portrayal of the events.
Furthermore, many of these documents have been released by the Albanian government itself [5], which considers the border war a historical fact. This demonstrates that the topic remains relevant today and holds some historical significance.
Additionally, Operation Pyrsos was a military operation by the National Army against the communist Greek rebels. This aspect should not be disregarded, as it contributes to a broader understanding of the political and military history of the region.
In conclusion, I propose that we retain the article "Albanian-Greek Border". However, we can make additional efforts to verify the sources and ensure the information presented is balanced and reliable. This will help keep these articles informative and relevant to readers.
I look forward to hearing your opinions on this matter and encourage an open and constructive discussion.
Thank you. NormalguyfromUK (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article, by its very title, alleges a full-on war between Albania and Greece, and a deliberate Greek invasion with the aim of conquering parts of Albania that was defeated. That is the topic as defined by you as one of the article authors. I see no sources that support it (even the communist government from what I can tell talked of 'provocations', nothing more), quite the contrary, I see source cherrypicking and falsification to support extraordinary claims. Minor cross-border incidents that were part of Operation Pyrsos should be covered there; anything else is an invented topic and should be deleted. Constantine ✍ 15:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why invented topic? Many of the documentaries that exist in Albanian say themselves that it was a successful victory for the Albanian people's army. The only goal of you is to delete the article and make it appear as if this event never happened.These provocations took place and were even considered as a war by Albanian professors such as Bernad Zotaj. NormalguyfromUK (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/56913691) how is it an invented topic, when Albania literally alleged Greece of anm invasion of its territory? Albania even went to the United Nations because of these events. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:NormalguyfromUK, Bernard Zotaj claimed in a newspaper article without references, that there was a full-scale invasion, with Greece supposedly mobilizing against Albania 70,000 troops, 50 airplanes, 80 tanks, and 400 artilleries (mostly cannons). This is simply fringe; there was no such full-scale invasion. Regardless of that, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.
User:GermanManFromFrankfurt, this is a primary source from 12 August 1949, that actually refers to an Albanian radio report from 10 August, which talked about an alleged invasion; in the same article we read that this was dismissed by Greece's Ministry for War as "fantastic" (fictitious), while Greek circles in London said that the allegation had no credence and that the only fighting that was taking place was near the Albanian border, as a result of the ongoing Greek Civil War between the Greek government troops and the Greek communists, in what is commonly known as Operation Pyrsos. During the same time we have the United Nations dismissing these Albanian allegations. From International Conflicts, 1816-2010: Militarized Interstate Dispute Narratives – Volume 1 (2018) by Douglas M. Gibler:
  • p. 329: In August 1949 Albania claimed that Greek forces were invading the southern part of the country in an attempt to gain territory. The United Nations dismissed the allegation, citing Greece's efforts to fight the Communist rebels in the face of Albania's over support for the insurgency. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the book mentioned above doesn't have any mention of this war/battle and is the only RS, we'd have to delete it. I can't find any mentions in GScholar, Jstor or the New York Times. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is sourced and I see no reason to delete it. The argument that this War was nothing more than a border-clash during Operation Pyrsos also doesn't make sense, since there were several battles fought between the Albanian and Greek Army and the clashes went on for several days as the Greek Army invaded Albanian territory.(https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/56913691) GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greek government troops pursued the retreating Greek communist guerrillas a few kilometres beyond the Greek-Albanian border and clashed sporadically with Albanian border patrols; this is already mentioned in Operation Pyrsos. Furthermore, as explained above, what you shared is a primary source from 12 August 1949, that actually refers to an Albanian radio report from 10 August, which talked about an alleged invasion; in the same article we read that this was dismissed by Greece's Ministry for War as "fantastic" (fictitious), while Greek circles in London said that the allegation had no credence and that the only fighting that was taking place was near the Albanian border, as a result of the ongoing Greek Civil War between the Greek government troops and the Greek communists, in what is commonly known as Operation Pyrsos. During the same time we have the United Nations dismissing these Albanian allegations. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the final report of the UNSCOB, at the 4th session of the UN Assembly on the 23rd of September 1949, the commission wrote that “...Greek soldiers have violated the Albanian border by crossing into Albanian territory…” and saying this was just a part of Operation Pyrsos is dumb because the Operation ended couple of days before the start of September While the border war was still going on up until athe middle of September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk • contribs) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's even a fact that the Greek National Army invaded on August 2 1949 the Billisht area which was confirmed by the United Nations ...on 2 August 1949 , troops of the Athens Government had invaded Albanian territory in the Bilishte district ... [6] NormalguyfromUK (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the provocations of August 1949 as described were not events but real military attacks against Albania.[7] NormalguyfromUK (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS; the United Nations never claimed anything of the sort. The quote shared above by User:NormalguyfromUK is from a report published on 2 November 1949 by the UNSCOB (United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans), describing the positions of an Albanian delegate (Mr. Prifti to be more precise); it was part of a general discussion concerning "threats to the political independence and territorial integrity of Greece", in the 307th meeting (here is the full report). The United Nations didn't adopt this position. Furthermore, i couldn't find the quote shared by User:Based.shqiptar.frompirok; please provide a link to the purported source. Google Books doesn't give me any results, and even if there was such a report, it couldn't be the final one (as claimed above), since we have many more after 23 September 1949 (including the aforementioned one, from 2 November 1949). In fact, UNSCOB lasted until December 1951. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. This is a WP:POVFORK of Operation Pyrsos, describing events from the point of view of communist Albania. In both cases, the operation began on 2 August 1949, and lasted for about a month, in the very same broader region of Gramos. Furthermore, the reason that the official Albanian narrative of the time didn't mention any Greek communists, probably has to do with the fact that their presence and activity on Albanian territory, as well as the support that they received from the Albanian state, was all part of a secret operation known as Aksioni 10. So, of course they would not admit that the Greek government forces were primarily fighting Greek communists; on both sides of the Greek-Albanian border. Last, even the image that is being used in the article is misleading. It claims to show Albanian border troops during the so-called war we are discussing; however, this photograph shows Albanian guards at the border with Yugoslavia (not Greece), on 19 January 1967 (about 18 years later). The image was actually taken from Getty Images (here), and constitutes a copyright violation; it has been nominated for speedy deletion. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: I forgot to mention that a similar article was created about a year ago, and it was decided to merge with Operation Pyrsos (here). This new attempt takes it a step further, and alleges a full-scale invasion or full-scale war between Greece and Albania, when even the POV of Communist Albania described these incidents as provocations; while modern reliable secondary sources, as skirmishes that were directly associated with Operation Pyrsos. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It says there itself that it is disputed so it can also be from the Greek border, which the Albanian articles say, for example [8]NormalguyfromUK (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you trying to mislead your fellow editors, again? The caption of the original photograph is the following:
    • Albania: Border Patrol. Members of the Albanian Army plus a dog keep a strict watch at the border. This is the area which borders on Yugoslavia which is still in dispute. – 19 January, 1967
    This is clearly referring to a disputed border between Yugoslavia and Albania, not a disputed location. Furthermore, the article you shared doesn't include any information about the photograph, nor does it say that these are troops during the Battle of Vidohovë (1949); in fact, it is located under a section that talks about provocations in general (including Yugoslavian provocations). But besides all these, aren't you forgetting that the photograph was taken on 19 January 1967, or approximately 18 years after the purported incident, and therefore cannot be related? Anyway, the image was deleted, as it constituted a copyright violation. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the pictures weren't from Getty Images, but whatever. In any case, because of the Albanian-Greek border war, there was a wealth of information, reports and discussions surrounding the topic. Articles were also written from a Soviet point of view, which were intended to contribute to the discussion and the exchange of information.[9] This document is an archive of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation. And here is an article from 1949, which was published in the Soviet Union. This article comes from the Trud publishing house. Its reported in the article и явно направляемая из одного центра война нервов , сопровождающаяся прямыми военными действиями против албанских по- граничных районо в (Russian) days of August, against Albania from the north and from the south, a systematic and clearly directed from one center war of nerves is being waged, accompanied by direct military operations against the Albanian border regions (English). [10] NormalguyfromUK (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these are communist-era sources. The first one is a primary source; the diary of Dmitry Chuvakhin, summarizing a conversation he had with the leader of Communist Albania Enver Hoxha, on 2 August 1949. This is certainly not the Soviet point of view, nor did Chuvakhin himself adopt the views of Hoxha. What is telling however, is that according to Hoxha himself, the goal of the Greek government troops by crossing the Greek-Albanian border, was to go behind the lines of the Greek communist guerillas and attack them from the rear; they did this as they were moving along the Greek-Albanian border. In contrast to your narrative, Hoxha didn't view this as a full-scale invasion or a war, but as a provocation, directly associated with the Greek Civil War.
    • Энвер Ходжа считает, что цель этой новой провокации греческих монархо-фашистов старая, т.е. пересечь албанскую территорию и зайти в тыл греческим демократам. Об этом, как он заметил, свидетельствует развитие происходящего сейчас боя – греки не идут в глубь албанской территории, а с боем продвигаются вдоль албано-греческой границы на албанской стороне с тем, чтобы, дойдя до определенного пункта на границе, повернуть на греческую территорию и бить греческих демократов с тыла. [Enver Hoxha believes that the goal of this new provocation of the Greek monarcho-fascists is old, i.e. cross into Albanian territory, and go behind the lines of the Greek democrats. This, as he noted, is evidenced by the development of the ongoing battle [Operation Pyrsos] – the Greeks do not go deep into the Albanian territory, but move along the Greek-Albanian border on the Albanian side, so that, having reached a certain point on the border, turn back to Greek territory and attack the Greek democrats from the rear.]
    The second source is an article written by a journalist named Lev Sedin (Лев Седин), and published in the Russian weekly magazine Новое Время; probably in September 1949, as it is from the 37th issue of that year. You cannot claim that this is the Soviet point of view either. First of all, this is not an official Soviet document, and second we do not even know whether the author describes the position of Communist Albania, or his own; this is an incomplete quote. Last, neither of these are scholarly sources, and are in fact quite old. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that Enver Hoxha said in the document that they were attacked militarily by the Greeks and also in the document there is no mention of Operation Pyrsos but only of the provocations of 1949. And I wasn't concerned that the article was old or anything else but I also wanted to show it from other perspectivesy. In addition to this, the document clearly described and the struggle of Vidohovë. What you can read there yourself. Энвер Ходжа сообщил, что 2 августа в 5 час. утра греческие монархо-фашисты силами до двух батальонов вторглись на албанскую территорию в р-не Видохово (юго-восточнее Корчи). Албанские пограничники оказали монархо-фашистам упорное сопротивление. В результате этой провокации по данным на 11 часов греческие монархо-фашисты потеряли убитыми до 100 человек и свыше 100 человек ранеными. Потери с албанской стороны по непроверенным данным: 1 человек убит и 2-е раненых. Пока сопротивление монархо-фашистам оказывает только пограничная охрана, а регулярные части албанской армии в бой не втянуты.And also here it was clearly described by the academician Luan Omari that the provocations of 1949 came to a real military attack.[11] NormalguyfromUK (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Attacked militarily" is not the same as full-scale invasion and full-sale war, like the discussed article alleges. Furthermore, i didn't claim that Operation Pyrsos is mentioned verbatim in the document; hence why i included it in square brackets, which are used to indicate editorial replacements and insertions within quotations, that are meant to clarify certain points of the original quote, reduce the size of a quotation, or simply for grammatical purposes; per MOS:PMC and MOS:BRACKET. In this case, it meant to clarify Hoxha's description of battles between the so-called "Greek monarcho-fascists" and "Greek democrats", which is commonly known as Operation Pyrsos. Hoxha doesn't speak of a full-scale invasion or war, but of provocations (per the POV of Communist Albania), and even the figures he gives for the incident of Vidohovë, are unverified according to Chuvakhin himself.
    Omari (1988) is likewise a communist-era source, and thus inherently unreliable. But regardless of that, even he describes these as provocations, that were directly associated with the Greek Civil War (Operation Pyrsos):
    • On August 2, incited and supported by the American imperialists, the Greek monarcho-fascists launched their offensive against the Greek Democratic Army (GDA) which was fighting for freedom and the establishment of democracy in Greece. On the same day, they carried out an open military attack against the PR of Albania. ... The provocation on 2 August was a continuation of the previous provocations, but on a more extensive scale and the prologue to a series of planned combined grave provocations, which continued throughout the first half of August
    These attacks were in reality skirmishes that were directly associated with Operation Pyrsos. As we read in the The Greek Civil War: Strategy, Counterinsurgency and the Monarchy (2017) by academic Spyridon Plakoudas; a recent reliable secondary source:
    • Operation Torch [alternative name of Operation Pyrsos] unfolded in three phases: in the first phase, the ΕΣ staged a diversionary attack on Grammos and, thereafter, stormed the undermanned fortifications on Vitsi; in the second phase, an overpowering attack captured the forts on Grammos; in the final phase, the ΕΣ pursued the remnants of the ΔΣΕ – even within Albania. Having secured the northern Yugoslav front, Greece wanted to invade Albania and kill two birds with one stone: annex northern Epirus and wipe out the ΔΣΕ. Despite its appeals to the Anglo-Americans for concerted military action, Washington and London prohibited an assault and the ΕΣ only pursued the retreating units of the ΔΣΕ within a few kilometers beyond the border and clashed sporadically with the Albanian border patrols.
    This last book, has been praised in peer-reviews; such as the ones by Walter C. Ladwig (2019) and Spyros Tsoutsoumpis (2019). Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I did check the Giorgos Margaritis' work on the Greek Civil War, generally acknowledged to be the most comprehensive scholarly treatment of the topic. The 'invasion' of 2 August is identified as a flanking manoeuver by a single company, in order to avoid the extensive minefields that the communists had laid. The operation was intended to capture Height 1425 or Chelona, which was inside Greece. Nothing here about intending to occupy Albanian territory. Constantine ✍ 12:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article refers to when the albanian and greek army actually faced off in a conflict, not just that the Albanians supported communist Greek forces as in operation Pyrsos. therefor it should have its own article, there are definitely sources on this event and it did happen.Durraz0 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussed article alleges a full-scale invasion or full-scale war, that even goes against the POV of Communist Albania which viewed these incidents as provocations; while modern reliable secondary sources view them as skirmishes that were directly associated with Operation Pyrsos. Operation Pyrsos doesn't only talk about the support Communist Albania provided to the Greek guerillas, but also about the aforementioned skirmishes between the Greek government troops and the Albanian border patrols. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep think that the article should stay because there were many sources where it was not only assumed but also confirmed that there was a military attack not only from the Albanians but also from other perspectivesEdison18273 (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I have been closely following the discussion and I have not seen serious arguments to retain this article. A lot of it amounts to whether it happened or not. No reliable sources were presented and almost all of the current sources present the alleged event from an Albanian POV, which is not really per NPOV. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RS don't support the claim that such a "war" occurred. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. Khirurg (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I can't even see a consensus among participants that this war occurred, much less whether or not this article is a fair and sourced description of it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a WP:POVFORK Karnataka (talk) 18:31, 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 no consensus‎. After two re-lists, no strong rationale to keep but no real consensus to delete either; can be revisited. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games – Women's team[edit]

Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games – Women's team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and EVENT. Source eval:

Comments Source
Routine sports news 1. "Thai ahead of other countries in gold medals" . Daily News (in Malay). 11 December 1975. p. 7 . Retrieved 21 May 2022 – via NewspaperSG .
No SIGCOV about subject 2. ^ "Singaporean female badminton players killed" . Daily News (in Malay). 12 December 1975. p. 7 . Retrieved 21 May 2022 – via NewspaperSG .
Routine sports news 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Sylvia the star". The Straits Times. 13 December 1975. p. 31. Retrieved 21 May 2022 – via NewspaperSG.
Routine sports news 4. ^ "Seap results". The Straits Times. 11 December 1975. p. 34. Retrieved 21 May 2022 – via NewspaperSG.
Routine sports news 5. ^ "Results". The Straits Times. 12 December 1975. p. 38. Retrieved 21 May 2022 – via NewspaperSG.
BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
No objection to a redirect to Badminton at the 1975 Southeast Asian Peninsular Games  // Timothy :: talk  21:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's common practice to create separate pages for individual and team events to remove burden on the main page. See other SEA Games Badminton articles where singles, doubles, team all have distinct articles. You can find more sources when searching for this subject in NewspaperSG. zoglophie 16:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These types of articles are always more of list type articles because they don't really fit any other way. The event is obviously notable on its own, being an international competition and there's clearly going to be limited English resources on this due to the the timeframe and location of the event.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games. No justification has been provided for a standalone article. The (sparse) coverage all applies equally to the parent article, which is both notable and not very large; it could easily accommodate any encyclopedic information from here. This title is in NOTDATABASE territory. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd say leaning a consensus of keep but given a bit of debate later in the cycle relisting for 1 cycle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suryapet Junction[edit]

Suryapet Junction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a hub for unreleased films. This article can only be recreated if it has two+ reliable reviews when released. Also four of the sources are from unreliable sources. Why is the production of this film notable? DareshMohan (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the sources in question verily offer significant coverage, demonstrating the 'Suryapet Junction' film's anticipation within the realm of Telugu cinema. Secondly, the array and depth of said coverage hint at the anticipation surrounding the film, indicative of its potential notability. Interviews with cast members, commentary on its trailer, and the release of an "item song" at a cricket cup. Jack4576 (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until there are independent reviews and write-ups on which to base an article. Everything so far is routine publicity generated by the film's producers. We're not in the business of creating articles because something looks like it might become notable. Elemimele (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist (leaning toward draftification).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify WP:TOOSOON as well as the nom Karnataka (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant coverage of the movie in the given sources. DreamRimmer (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I'm unimpressed by the available sources, which do little more than state that filming has completed and quote the cast for their opinions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:37, 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 no consensus‎. Only 2 votes, even after having been relisted twice. (non-admin closure) 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Latimer[edit]

David Latimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO - sources are largely interview-based or WP:INHERITED from his company New Frontier Design (which is likely to be notable). MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to hear more opinions on the current state of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the current state of the article adequately demonstrates notability for David Latimer. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McCullough (author)[edit]

Jack McCullough (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a business executive that fails our WP:GNG and WP:INDEPTH criteria. The few reliable sources that are used as refs are just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject. Possible WP:PROMO. Recommend WP:SALT. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Almost certainly a UPE-editor (they have another UPE-BLP in draft); and a skilled one (i.e. this was an expensive UPE). Over 46 refs - when I saw this first I thought, come on OP, you need to go through these refs for us. However, even from a first pass, most look like junk/spam/primary RS. Will take a little longer to go through this BLP properly, but I suspect that this is non-notable. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This BLP is extraordinarily promotional with lines like: "McCullough played a crucial role in supporting the CFO community amidst the banking crisis triggered by the collapses of First Republic Bank and Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) in March 2023". Certainly a 100% UPE/PROMO article, and a borderline G11 case. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:55, 7 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! 23:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and per comment by Aszx5000. 43 Refs and a runthrough sample they look primary, promo and then passing mentions. Disagree with Salt - a more neutral editor may be able to revive an article here, possibly post TNT. ResonantDistortion 22:55, 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 redirect‎ to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soap MacTavish[edit]

Soap MacTavish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article shows no evidence of SIGCOV and cited reception does not provide notability for the character either. Cited sources are quick mentions at best, including one from TheGamer. It does have a previous AFD here, but was speedy closed due to poor nomination rationale. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. Fails WP:GNG. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 21:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional Elements-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to a suitable Call of Duty article, such as the first Modern Warfare game, or the franchise article. A quick source review, the first two are about the voice actor with only a passing mention. Source 3 is dead but primary anyway, no need to dig. Source 4 is "he's released for CoD Mobile" and nothing else. 5 and 6 are retail stores, shouldn't even exist. Source 7 name drops Soap among a list of other characters including in a F2P mobile game. Source 8 is another retail/primary source. Source 9 is a repeat of source 5, release announcement with a name drop only. Source 10, ah yes, Guinness. Literally says nothing but listing him with 50 other characters. This also wasn't an official anything from Guinness, it was an online poll so fails WP:USERG. Source 11, wow, this far before Valnet appears? Source 12, Complex, which is as bad as Valnet, and doesn't really say anything. Source 13 is the most indepth source thus far and it's still really just 3 paragraphs describing the in-game events of CoD 4. Source 14 is a bit closer, but charlieintel is a weak source to me. A somewhat lengthy article about what fans are saying of Soap in a new game, basically regurgitating social media posts. -- ferret (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per ferret's source breakdown. Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect What reception there is is very flacky and without any development jnfo, this can be covered in the char list. --Masem (t) 22:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There currently is no character list, but that's a separate consideration. -- ferret (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per others - does not qualify for standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Andre🚐 03:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Inclusion in several listicles (and heading one of them) doesn't seem sufficient to meet GNG, but some content here should be preserved through a merge. Certainly no need to delete this, soft deletion through redirecting, with some merge, would be best. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear consensus to Redirect but no consensus on the target article. When you voice support for a Redirect or Merge in an AFD, please be specific on where you want an article to be Redirected or Merged to by supplying a link to the target page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz The related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost (Call of Duty) should be followed, which redirected to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Both characters are from the same games. -- ferret (talk) 00:18, 8 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 Ian Thorpe#2004 Summer Olympics. No consensus to keep the article, but a reasonable consensus to redirect it as an ATD. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thorpe false start controversy[edit]

Ian Thorpe false start controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENT. Almost all the coverage is from 2004 when it happened. The incident is already covered in Ian_Thorpe#2004_Summer_Olympics. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's an interesting read, but I agree with the nominator that coverage of the episode appears to have been short-lived, so failing WP:EVENT. I also agree that the Ian Thorpe article effectively covers the incident. I would easily be persuaded to support keeping this article if reliable sources were to be presented that showing that this particular incident resulted in long-term changes to Australian Swimming or to either Thorpe's or Stevens's career. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an event that, while it has significant coverage, it doesn't have WP:LASTING on athlete's career, or at least it doesn't seem to have such an effect with the current format of the article. I think it could be easily integrated into Ian Thorpe and probably into Craig Stevens as well. Chiserc (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: The event is covered well in a subsection of the main article, as the nominator notes. This provides the WP:ATD of redirecting -- the content exists elsewhere on Wikipedia, and a redirect would be useful to help readers find it. A stand-alone article seems unnecessary for prior discussed reasons, but redirecting is more policy-compliant here than outright deletion. Vaticidalprophet 00:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose redirect as it's an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems plausible enough it couldn't be speedied, and I'm reasonably confident such a redirect would be kept at RfD if it were created without history. Thorpe's article has other subsection redirects, some of which seem more niche and get fewer views than this does. Vaticidalprophet 13:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Vaticidalprophet. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the news coverage seems like it's effectively summarized in the Thorpe article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect not enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage for a separate article. But a sensible enough redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the point in the article where it's already covered Karnataka (talk) 18:55, 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 redirect‎ to Udaariyaan. Only major sourcing is from the Times of India. Ignoring the Times of India (which also can be unreliable due to being known for accepting payment for positive coverage), this does not pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle Arora[edit]

Twinkle Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in article to show that WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR is met. Searching showed some minor parts, but not the multiple significant roles NACTOR looks for. Ravensfire (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: She appears to be a main character in the show Udaariyaan and has coverage (as noted by Compulsive Researcher above) that's come along with it. The fact that a Punjabi and Hindi language actress has English language coverage at all seems at least kind of significant to me. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here. Mbinebri (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Udaariyaan - References are generally flimsy with most being from "Times of India" who appear to be like the Daily Fail (reporting on anything and everything), Also currently at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources it states "The publication is also known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." - How does anyone know this hasn't been the case here?, Anyway i'm mostly seeing tabloid stuff however as Udaariyaan appears to be her I guess most notable role so far I would have no objections to redirecting there. –Davey2010Talk 01:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just spotted [12] from the link above however I still don't believe that's enough so thus (ignoring Times of India) I believe she fails SIGCOV and GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:15, 9 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 00:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Song Quiroga[edit]

Diana Song Quiroga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable United States magistrate judge. Per WP:USCJN#Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges, "Magistrate judges... are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability."

There's no other strong indicia of notability here; she's previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, but as far as I know, US attorneys are not notable by virtue of that position, either, and certainly not assistant U.S. attorneys.

The article was PRODded by Snickers2686 with the comment Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider/WP:USCJN; it was declined by MIAJudges with the comment Removing deletion request. This page has 21 references and only 6 are referring to her being a magistrate judge. She is not your "run of the mill" magistrate judge & is notable besides that one area of her career. She has recieved multiple awards as a history making person in the state of Texas.

I agree with Snickers2686's comment, and by extension the comments put forth in support of deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider, which isn't really distinguishable from this one. MIAJudges's response doesn't really address the lack of notability: yes, there are references that don't refer to Quiroga's magistrateship, but none of those references include anything that suggests notability; and the awards are not sufficiently distinctive. TJRC (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is not your "run of the mill" magistrate judge & is notable besides that one area of her career. She has received multiple awards as a history making person in the state of Texas, as she is the first Taiwanese federal judge in Texas.

MIAJudges (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NRV: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" You say there are twenty-one sources in the article, but frankly, several of them are repetitious like the high school interview (which is used three different times) and her court bio which is cited five times; condensing those down would reduce the numbers of citations significantly. Furthermore, you say that because of the awards she's won that it establishes nobility - please cite the policy where this is true, as it is, there are no citations in the article to verify the awards she's won. There's nothing in the article (the present version) that elaborates on how her appointment is significant via her background, so why make the claim here if it's not in the article, much less cited? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snickers2686

I did not say that SOLEY because of the awards she's won she is notable. It one one of MANY reasons I listed. You left out her being the first Taiwanese federal judge in the state of Texas, which I also mentioned. I did not add the section regarding the awards she won so I am not sure why the person that added it did not include a reference. I went back & looked through the history of her page a a large amount of information was deleted. The users that deleted it did not give an explanation as to why, so I added back more information.

MIAJudges (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Diana Song Quiroga does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I searched for sources about her and could find only passing mentions in news articles about cases she presided over. The Wikipedia article contains this article from a high school newspaper:
    • Pan, Pamela (2016-02-29). "Alumni Watch: Judge Quiroga aces as Magistrate" (PDF). TCHS Rampage. Vol. 61, no. 9. Temple City High School. p. 6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
    Although the article provides significant coverage about her, it is not sufficiently reliable as it is from a high school newspaper.

    Cunard (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Per WP:HEY, consensus that the new sources added are sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Burton[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Neel Burton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article concerns an academic who does not meet notability guidelines under WP:ACADEMIC JoshuaGrayy (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Psychiatry, Mauritius, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have cited some reviews in the article that show a pass of WP:AUTHOR. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I am still slightly on the fence though. On the one hand, I can see how this could meet WP:AUTHOR but on the other hand given (a) that many books within the field are reviewed by journals at the request of the author and (b) that, as mentioned in the previous NfD for this page, these books aren't generally considered "significant or well-known", I am still not sure whether it fully meets point 3 of WP:AUTHOR. I am still quite new to this though, so very happy to be told I'm wrong and defer to greater experience. JoshuaGrayy (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 7 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 00:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The London Bank of Australia and India[edit]

The London Bank of Australia and India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed bank which never actually operated (contrary to the claims in the article, which seems largely based on uninformed speculation based on the date and name). I can find no evidence for the following claims in the article; (infobox) the type, industry, date and name of foundation, date defunct, number of locations, products; (article) "winding down of its operations", "was notable", "largely served customers of...", nationality and background of staff, final years (!), and legacy (a "key role in the history of banking in India"???). In reality, we have one source which gives a bit of attention to the bank[13], and the remainder are simple name drops or listings in tables, nothing significant; all these make it clear that the bank was never operational, it collected money to start operations and returned the money when it couldn't start in the end, and thus was never operational. I have no idea where the "facts" in this article have been taken from. Fram (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated The East India Bank (1842), created by the same (since blocked) editor, with the same issues, including the exact same claims of "The bank was staffed by mostly British nationals who were drawn mainly from the East India Company" and "The bank played a key role in the history of Banking in India". Fram (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2023-02 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The citation "Banking in India" specifically says The Bank was therefore never brought into active operation. Furthermore, the citation to the Reserve Bank of India actually labels it as "stillborn". So the article's statement that "the bank played a key role" is unjustified. Perhaps the failure caused some change in approach or legislation, who knows? But there is no cited information about this. So I think the article fails content as well as on WP:N Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 7 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 00:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanita Namuyimbwa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shanita Namuyimbwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Someone claiming to be the subject of the article has asked at the Teahouse that it be deleted. Of course the subject's wishes are not the main consideration; if the subject is notable, the article should not be deleted. But fundamentally this is a piece of gossip, sourced to gossip. In summary: Prostitute conned a client out of an eyewatering amount of cash, got jailed and had a very small controversy over whether they should be paid for making a public health advert. It's not hard to find newspaper articles and interviews; the subject is clearly the sort of person who aims to get interviewed and seen driving a big car[14]. But these look to me like gossip-column stuff befitting the Daily Mail. Unsurprisingly, when I search for her British victim's name, the only UK news source seems to be the Daily Mail. I cannot assess the reliability of the Ugandan press, but it seems to me possible that the subject is, in fact, a minor figure famous for one event only, this article serving only to enhance her fame/notoriety (whichever way you look at it). Definitely worth a second opinion on whether this is the sort of stuff we want in WP. Elemimele (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. Nomination withdrawn by nominator due to impeccable work by Cbl62. (non-admin closure)‎ Rockchalk717 23:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Hunt[edit]

Norma Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as the majority of the sources available (that I can find) about her are reporting on her death which doesn't qualify as significant coverage. She didn't inherit notability from her her husband after his death and isn't automatically notable because her son is. After stripping away all the unsourced and inaccurate information there is barely enough for an article and even the article's lede fails to properly establish notability.Rockchalk717 23:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: She is mentioned briefly in a section, although that nonetheless could probably use a look-over to see if any info could be merged.
Duonaut (talk | contribs) 00:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the article, which isn't very much, is already mentioned in any other relevant articles.--Rockchalk717 00:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer Lamar Hunt#Personal life. Norma is better known as the Kansas City Chiefs owner and Lamar Hunt's wife. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, once again the information (all 2 sentences of it) in her article is already mentioned in Lamar Hunt's article, the Never Miss a Super Bowl Article, and the Chiefs article. So that pretty much eliminates the need for a merger.--Rockchalk717 01:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a redirect too. Possibly add creation protection too because I do feel like it's strong possibility the redirect could be removed at some point.--Rockchalk717 18:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support creation protection as well. Frank Anchor 21:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in WP:GNG that says that editorially-independent and in-depth obituary coverage does not count in establishing notability. In any event, the coverage is not limited to the time of her death. See this from 2016. Cbl62 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep: I'm skeptical that this person is notable, but I do think you're making a good faith effort to meet WP:GNG. I would be fine with keeping in the current state, but it still needs improvement. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping an open mind, User:TulsaPoliticsFan. If you can clarify which aspects of the article you believe still need improvement, I'd be happy to work on them. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just more sourcing and coverage from their lifetime. It looks like 7/12 of the sources are obits. If you have access to a newspaper archive like Newspapers.com or Newspaperarchive.com they can help with finding older news coverage. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Amazing work making sure it passes GNG. I have withdrawn my nomination.--Rockchalk717 23:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks to be as if plenty of sources exist that prove notability. Quality can be improved, sure, but she was the (at least co) owner of a multi billion dollar sports club in a multi multi billion dollar industry. Johannes Frederick-Gaitan (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhumik Pravin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dhumik Pravin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance, let alone notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. None of the sources are independent, reliable or secondary. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is some sort of significant of the article. Some of the sources are reliable. Please don’t delete the page Legwarmersprofuse (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can remove some information that doesn’t have sources but I don’t think it to be deleted Legwarmersprofuse (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Strike sock comments Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless another admin decides to G5, I was thinking it would be good to let this AfD continue so that there be the basis for G4 deletions in the future. This, however, is eligible for G5 deletion. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As sad as it is, speedy delete per G5 and arguably A7. Creation by blocked user and doesn't even come close to establishing notability or any claim of significance, nor addressing the previous AfD. :( PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:00, 7 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. LFaraone 22:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Real11[edit]

Real11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. None of the references on the article satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH; a WP:BEFORE search only turned up press releases and company announcements. Maduant (talk) 19:25, 7 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. The article is poor, but there is a strong consensus that the topic is inherently notable (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders–Seahawks rivalry[edit]

Raiders–Seahawks rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little remains to anchor a whole page for this, chances are, you could likely make a sub article into the teams' pages PontiacAurora (talk) 19:13, 7 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. Strong consensus it meets WP:NPOL (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claude François Bruno Siblot[edit]

Claude François Bruno Siblot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A one sentence biography - not ready to remain published; zero article translate from French Wikipedia since January 2012 JoeNMLC (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The current article is really bad, but looking at the French version he does appear to meet WP:NPOL and it can be improved with references from the French language article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 22:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shain Neumeier[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shain Neumeier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello,

I was looking up information about them, but couldn't find many in-depth sources about them. I looked through the history, and saw that there were far more sources, most of which were added by one or two people. However, many of these sources didn't mention them much. A lot of other sources were self-published. I hope that their article can stay, but I don't know. What do you think? 2620:8D:8000:1040:AD0E:F45F:9F64:727F (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC) ported over from Talk:Shain Neumeier by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I now see that there are quite a few sources that can't be found directly by search. Shain has done good work for sure. 66.152.106.10 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think they pass WP:BASIC due to the extensive commentary on their work here: Blanck, P., Hyseni, F., & Wise, F. A. (2021). Diversity and inclusion in the american legal profession: Discrimination and bias reported by lawyers with disabilities and lawyers who identify as LGBTQ+. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 47(1), 9-61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2021.1
Combined with all the other sources, this is enough. Neumeier seems to be an expert in the field of human rights, and this article is overall a net positive to the encyclopaedia.
I added some content to the article since it was nominated, before sharing this perspective. CT55555(talk) 19:13, 7 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 Delhi–Moradabad line. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jhalra halt railway station[edit]

Jhalra halt railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable train stop. Nothing famous happened here, it's just a point on a map. Not meeting GNG. No historic buildings at the site, no historic events took place here, I can't find much of anything for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 1840 date might be a mistake, but the photos don't suggest that the station building was built recently. And if it was built in the pre-Internet era, offline sources may need to be consulted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May be I have made some mistake in writing, but it does not mean that you will remove the writing, fix it and improve it, it is also available on Google Maps, I will give you the link. Theanjum (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the first passenger train in India reportedly ran in 1853, I'm going to call the 1840 opening date BS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May be I have made some mistake in writing, but it does not mean that you will remove the writing, fix it and improve it, it is also available on Google Maps, I will give you the link. Theanjum (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May be I have made some mistake in writing, but it does not mean that you will remove the writing, fix it and improve it, it is also available on Google Maps, I will give you the link. Theanjum (talk) 04:15, 8 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. Searches on this side of the Atlantic produced better RS; support also to move to Ashley Shaw (dancer) post close. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Shaw (ballerina)[edit]

Ashley Shaw (ballerina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable performer. Beyond social media and an interview in the Daily Mail, rest are mentions of her performances only. Oaktree b (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My other point was that if one were searching for "Ashley Shaw" and "ballerina" in a search engine like Google, one probably finds far fewer initial hits than if one is searching for "Ashley Shaw" and "dancer" or "Ashley Shaw" and "Matthew Bourne". Cielquiparle (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans. I'll wait until after the closer to move to Ashley Shaw (dancer). I'm seeing a few snowflakes starting to fall here tbf.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 08:26, 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 23:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tresór Toropité[edit]

Tresór Toropité (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:53, 7 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. LFaraone 22:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zico Phillips[edit]

Zico Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find a single piece of in-depth coverage in third-party sources, with the closest probably being this 2015 transfer story. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:50, 7 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. Not sure what happened in my search. Thank you BeanieFan11. (non-admin closure)‎ JTtheOG (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Ebanks[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jonah Ebanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find a single piece of in-depth coverage from third-party sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:46, 7 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 List of New Caledonia international footballers. ✗plicit 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Wetria[edit]

Jordan Wetria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find much in-depth coverage from independent sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:43, 7 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. Sources presented in discussion establish the subject's notability. signed, Rosguill talk 01:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Lipscomb[edit]

John Lipscomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN bio - WP:1E, fails WP:GNG otherwise. UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom Andre🚐 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG JunitaWorker (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We had a discussion on the Talk about potential notability, but there was no consensus there and a glance shows me no new sourcing since last summer with which to improve the article. Star Mississippi 01:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This individual has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. An online search turned up the following sources:
  1. An article from 1997 in The Tampa Tribune;
  2. A piece about his 1997 ordination to the Anglican priesthood from The Tampa Bay Times (then the St. Petersburg Times);
  3. A 1997 AP wire story about his ordination to the episcopal priesthood;
  4. A 2003 piece from The Bradenton Herald about his opposition to elevation of Gene Robinson to the Episcopal episcopate;
  5. A 2003 piece from The Tampa Tribune about a letter Lipscomb penned following the vote to elevate Gene Robinson to the status of Bishop;
  6. A 2003 piece from The Naples Daily News about a letter he instructed be read to his congregations;
  7. A fairly long profile in the The Tampa Tribune that was published in February 2007;
  8. A May 2007 piece in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune announcing he was stepping down from the episcopate;
  9. Another profile in The Tampa Tribune that was published in November 2007 about his conversion to Catholicism;
  10. A November 2007 piece in The Ledger about his conversion to Catholicism.
  11. A profile piece that was published in The Tampa Bay Times about his ordination as a Catholic priest in 2009.
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. As the individual appears to pass WP:NBASIC, and this clearly isn't a WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E situation, the only conclusion I can reach here is to keep the article. There's some work to be done to improve the article to include broader coverage of this person, but that doesn't mean that we should delete this. After all, as WP:DEL-CONTENT notes, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per RTH. This is someone with a minor degree of fame in a corner of the universe I am familiar with. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since there is potential to improve the page and some WP:NBASIC is validated. Normally, WP:BISHOPS is enough for that reason, even though a more in-depth coverage is needed for WP:SIGCOV. Chiserc (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sources given. The person who loves reading (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources newspaper coverage identified in this discussion which combined shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yenz Leonhardt[edit]

Yenz Leonhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN musician - fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fărâmiță Lambru[edit]

Fărâmiță Lambru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NNmusician - fails WP:NMUSICBIO UtherSRG (talk) 17:29, 7 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 Street Fighter characters. No consensus to keep, but a reasonable consensus to merge as a WP:ATD (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urien (Street Fighter)[edit]

Urien (Street Fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The main problem with the article is there is next to no reception about him as a character, and none that passes any amount of SIGCOV. There is discussion of his gameplay but the vast majority relates to his appearance in Street Fighter V and does not illustrate it in a manner of importance outside of the game itself. Discussions of gameplay at a professional level does not grant notability in and of itself given how frequent such discussions are in this era of eSports. Main argument is that as a result it fails GNG. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:48, 7 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. LFaraone 22:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Bong[edit]

Ernest Bong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Kuklina[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Polina Kuklina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN bio - fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Konotopski[edit]

Konotopski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability. No sources. UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: looks like nonsense to me, searches in Polish and Ukrainian don't turn anything up. If anyone has a source that even attests that such a family exists (existed?), that would be significant. Akakievich (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unless some hidden source turns up per above, does not seem to be notable or even real. I can't even find sources that wouldn't establish notability on a noble family, only mentions of the surname. Duonaut (talk | contribs) 23:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khim Prom[edit]

Khim Prom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN building & company. Fails WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 7 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. LFaraone 22:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshio Itagaki[edit]

Yoshio Itagaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN bio - fails WP:ARTIST UtherSRG (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kriss Hyseni[edit]

Kriss Hyseni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:SPORTCRIT, having only recorded 32 minutes of football play. Geschichte (talk) 14:26, 7 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! 17:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Benson (businessman)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
William Benson (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing per WPANYBIO and reliable independent sources NortonAngo (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The cited sources are either promotional pieces or trivial mention. No other suitable sources can be found either, as all the coverage I can locate are routine coverage, passing mentions and more promotional contents. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Owning a trademark is not notable. Pay a registration fee and I can do it as well. It appears the article is but a stub now, with no claim to notability. I can't find mentions of this individual, not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 7 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 00:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calal Kengerli[edit]

Calal Kengerli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG; the user is suspected of UPE — Toghrul R (t) 12:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 7 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 13:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Integration Reference Point[edit]

Integration Reference Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN technology standard. Little more than a dictdef. UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh crown jewels[edit]

Welsh crown jewels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The tl;dr summary is that this page is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, creating an issue that does not exist. All factual content on this page was copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia in properly targeted articles and can be safely deleted here.

To expand on the summary, the page was created by copying a series of chunks of text from other pages, [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21]. These have been used to synthesise a subject, the Welsh crown jewels, that does not exist as a subject. No one talks about these items as being the Welsh crown jewels and no secondary source on this page even attempts to establish that as the title subject. WP:BEFORE does show that the term can be used to discuss the honours of the principality of Wales [22], [23], [24], [25] used for the investiture of the prince of Wales, but this page is not about those. The page also contains a flag that has no provenance or sourcing. Much of the text is POVy retelling of the conquest of Wales, already covered in a range of other pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United Kingdom, and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another article born out of nationalistic POV editor that has no merit. Per the nomination, the matters is discussed appropriately in other articles. Nobody in Wales make reference to the article title. It is total wishful, nationalistic, thinking.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Velella. Those refs I was able to read bear little relation to the paragraphs they are supposed to source, and the whole article is written with such a blatant slant I could not see it being a useful part of Wikipedia. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's another content fork created by an editor by copying large chunks from pre-existing articles (so presumably no need for any merging post-AfD). The final conjecture about Owain Glyndwr is completely unsourced. There's no evidence here that "welsh crown jewells" is an actual subject of study. Sionk (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an encyclopedic subject in its own right - all useful content is already included elsewhere. Llwyld (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Term is only used for the Honours of the Principality of Wales, which is a potential redirect target. DrKay (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I concur with the points raised above. As noted, the relevant material is covered by other articles in a more appropriate fashion. Dunarc (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can support a delete based on lack of use for term. There may be a potential for Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over if relevant sources are found and the avoidance of copy-edits. This would dependent on relevant research and sources. Titus Gold (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and above, that the author supports deletion too, and as a synth mashup of various articles it is more better explained at the original articles. The term is also sometimes used for the Honours of the Principality of Wales (largely absent here) which could be a redirect target, although this article gives the impression it could also redirect elsewhere, so better delete. WP:TNT could apply as long as sufficient sources use the title without the need for OR or SYNTH for notability, nor is it already covered by another existing article, nor is it a clear recreation following this discussion. DankJae 15:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dockside Saloon and Restaurant[edit]

Dockside Saloon and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, just a few local WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS is not enough to establish notability. --woodensuperman 12:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 12:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Oregon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). This is a continuation of Portland restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily. Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the city's restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local, regional, and national publications as well as other industry outlets, providing in-depth coverage of the business. I've asked the nominator to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. Based on sufficient coverage, this entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG per Another Believer. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above (GNG, etc.), the establishment's long past, as well as the bar and restaurant being a part of Portland, ice skating, law enforcement and Oregonian history. This is a notable factor in Portland culture as well as the location of notable incidents in the city. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spella Caffè[edit]

Spella Caffè (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, just a few local WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS is not enough to establish notability. --woodensuperman 12:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 12:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Oregon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). This is a continuation of Portland restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily. Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the city's restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local, regional, and national publications as well as books and other industry outlets, providing in-depth coverage of the business. I've asked the nominator to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. Based on sufficient coverage, this entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bipartisan Cafe[edit]

Bipartisan Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, just a few local WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS is not enough to establish notability. --woodensuperman 12:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 12:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Oregon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). This is a continuation of Portland restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily. Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the city's restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local and regional publications and other industry outlets providing in-depth coverage of the business. I've asked the nominator to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. Based on sufficient coverage, this entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has 50 seemingly reputable sources, and the text points out it's a major city location for political meetings, other group events, and historical context. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has enough RS to suggest notability. If the article is lacking, improvement is a better alternative to deletion. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orxan Qarabasma[edit]

Orxan Qarabasma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG; not a notable artist. Paid-editing is suspected — Toghrul R (t) 12:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I can't judge the quality of the sources given, the individual appears non-notable. Does not appear to have any charted singles, won any awards, NMUSIC likely not met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ginevra Lamborghini[edit]

Ginevra Lamborghini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enciclopedic for Wikipedia:Notability (people), now it's premature. This page is deleted also on it.wikipedia (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginevra_Lamborghini) because it's not enciclopedic. Grankate (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet any musical notability standards, no charted singles, no music awards. I can't judge the quality of the Italian sources, but if it was delete on it-wiki, I assume they aren't much to go on. Oaktree b (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 7 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 13:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Brass Pub[edit]

Horse Brass Pub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a great pub, but really don't think a few local reviews are enough to establish its notability. WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE; WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. --woodensuperman 12:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 12:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Oregon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). This is a continuation of Portland restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily. Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the city's restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local, regional, and national publications as well as books and other industry outlets, providing in-depth coverage of the business. I've asked the nominator to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. Based on sufficient coverage, this entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly has enough sourcing to place its notability both historically and culturally among English-style pubs in the Western U.S. and the U.S. as a whole. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Croissant[edit]

Twisted Croissant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Surely this fails WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS? All coverage is from a single state, this is hardly getting wide-ranging or national coverage. --woodensuperman 12:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Have just spotted that there is a ton of these at Category:Bakeries of Oregon. If these were local bands, or local bars, etc., they'd easily fail WP:N, I can't see as this is any different. They seem more suitable for WikiVoyage or something. Maybe we should use this as a test case, and then review the rest. --woodensuperman 12:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Crap. Category:Dive bars in Portland, Oregon. I think the whole Category:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon tree needs to be looked at closely. --woodensuperman 12:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Oregon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment given the dissension at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (2nd nomination), I don't think a "test case" is going to be viable. They'll all need to be considered individually since there's no clear consensus. Star Mississippi 12:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I don't think I have the commitment or fight, there are loads of these, none with any significant coverage other than what's on the menu! But wow, these seem to be turning Wikipedia into more of a Portland tourist guide than an encyclopedia. --woodensuperman 12:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm quite proud of my 50+ Portland restaurant Good articles (with more nominated and planned). If you think none of these entries demonstrate significant coverage, then perhaps you should take another look at notability criteria because clearly many people would disagree with you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). This is a continuation of Portland restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily. Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the city's restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found multiple reliable local and regional publications and other industry outlets providing detailed coverage of the business. I've asked the nominator to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. Based on sufficient coverage, this entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Pinchard[edit]

Harry Pinchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a semi-professional footballer who has never played higher than the sixth tier. Fails WP:GNG. Number 57 11:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm surprised there's no mention of football (soccer) or comparable European team sports like both codes of rugby on the notability guidelines for sports people page, but he's been capped by Wales at Under-20 level. --Rhyswynne (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rhyswynne: There used to be one – WP:NFOOTBALL – which was scrapped because it was deemed to be too generous. However, he would not have even passed that, as there was consensus that being capped at youth level was not determined to contribute to a player being notable (see e.g. here or here). Cheers, Number 57 15:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I think someone needs to have a word with Pascopedral first it's non-notable seasons and now non-notable footballers, these shouldn't be created at this level. Govvy (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I now understand the level at which footballers and seasons need to be created at. I have no objections to this and any of the Hereford FC seasons I’ve created being deleted as they clearly don’t comply to WP:GNG. Pascopedral (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elso[edit]

Elso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks all notability[26][27], would be a speedy candidate if we could speedy delete films... Fram (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With the above, the one and only source is directly from the movie's creators. Tirishan (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Happy Tree Friends home video releases[edit]

List of Happy Tree Friends home video releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Nothing notable and only sourcing found is venues for purchasing or fandom site Ajf773 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reasoning as the rest of these “list of media for franchise” articles that have shown up here— not notable and not why Wikipedia exists. Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inline blowback (paintball)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Inline blowback (paintball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced technology for a low level sport, also reads as a howto. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOR Ajf773 (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Birch[edit]

Lincoln Birch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP subject has stated they would rather the page not exist 1. Low profile individual of questionable notability who is unlikely to gain more notability CiphriusKane (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Golf, Germany, and England. CiphriusKane (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Marginal IMO and would be happy to see it kept if others feel that way. Passes WP:NGOLF since he played a single season on the European Tour (2003, best 11th in the Qatar Masters). Didn't win anything significant as either an amateur or a pro. Finished 11th in the 2002 Challenge Tour order of merit which gave him the place on the 2003 European Tour. Twice runner-up on the 2002 Challenge Tour. Article here gives some biographical details. Nigej (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is one half-decent source and a small biography in the European Tour profile, and he seems to have had a promising career at one point, so it's quite possible other sources the would contribute to establishing notability exist. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely separate to the lack of clue leading to them flirting with a Streisand effect, I'm not seeing anything under either of the identities used to support the article (strings: "lincoln birch", "gary birch jr"). In fact, most of the hits I'm getting are completely irrelevant to the golfer, and what ones are relevant are merely statlines (too sparse). Without commenting on the book (can't assess - copy required) the only usable source cited is The National News (which uses "Gary Birch Jr."). The two European Tour sources (using "Lincoln Birch") are one and the same, and the biography on them has no obvious author credit I can see. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are sources to be found, the name used would almost certainly be Gary (Jr, Jnr, or Junior). wjematherplease leave a message... 17:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tend to agree with Nigej and don't see many of his accomplishments being noteworthy. Plenty of players who have achieved more than him do not have articles. But if consensus where to keep the page, then I am happy to go with that. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and "salt" to prevent re-creation Checking Newspapers.com, I've seen British golfer "Gary Birch" listed at the British Open in the early 2000s, way down the leaderboard. Basically a nobody. And the now-blocked user (allegedly the golfer) is being mysterious about a name change. (Gary to Lincoln?) Just a trouble magnet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The user seems to be something of a Prince Harry character. Doesn't want an article about himself but uploaded a photo of himself a few years ago. Seems that he only wants an article on his own terms. However, that shouldn't affect our decision here. Nigej (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiana Ivanova[edit]

Rumiana Ivanova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Achievements insufficient for WP:NBAD and the coverage is way short of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. I have searched Bulgarian sources and found nothing better than Gong, which mentions her once, Blitz, which also mentions her once, this time as a wedding guest, and Sportal, which mentions her twice in a results summary. All of the news hits seem to be passing mentions in articles that focus more on notable players like Petya Nedelcheva and Linda Zetchiri. Ivanova doesn't seem to have her own dedicated coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:07, 7 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 13:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stiven Pulgarín[edit]

Stiven Pulgarín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His achievements fall significantly short of WP:NBAD and the coverage in my searches is not enough for WP:GNG. I found Crónica, which mentions him in the title, but the article itself barely discusses him in any detail. The same news source has a few other articles that mention him in passing, like this one. Unfortunately, no amount of passing mentions add up to a passing of GNG. The lack of coverage isn't surprising given that he has never even ranked within the top 500. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:59, 7 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 Procedural close. Duplicate article redirected, AfD discussion ongoing at WP:Articles for deletion/Mohamadadil Asif Malkani‎. Spicy (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Qadri[edit]

Adil Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails in WP:Basic , WP:BIO ... Some sources are promotional Worldiswide (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments after final relist. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government Junior College, Gubbi[edit]

Government Junior College, Gubbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No useful sources were surfaced by the minimum searches mentioned in WP:CONRED. A previous PROD was contested.-MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Given that this school is in a fairly remote area I would expect this school to have exactly zero coverage. However, based on a quick Google search, there are a few sources (Indian Express and Deccan Herald) that mention the school hosting political rallies and speeches from prominent politicians. I think this points to the fact that the school is probably well known and/or notable in the local region and there could be some Kannada (local language) sources for the school. -- Sohom Datta (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete my own searches could not find indepth wide coverage. The 2 sources identified above by Sohom Datta are not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion would certainly benefit from more input in hopes of encouraging a consensus to form. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:45, 7 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! 07:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Raza Khan[edit]

Ahsan Raza Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from his two or three statements in the media about the Ayodhya issue, nothing notable is seen. The majority of the sources cited are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:Notability, WP:sigcov. Maliner (talk) 00:58, 8 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 13:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hartung[edit]

Peter Hartung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find indepth coverage of this individual. A search comes up with a lot of namesakes. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nishu Nursery and Kothari Convent[edit]

Nishu Nursery and Kothari Convent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No GNG-level sources were surfaced. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 02:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quintin Torres-Costa[edit]

Quintin Torres-Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill former minor league baseball player. Lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG Yankees10 01:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see what appears to be four unique reliable sources on the page. West Hawaii Today, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, KHON, Hawaii Tribune-Herald. - Scarpy (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources also have to contain non-routine SIGCOV to meet GNG. They all seem like routine transfer announcements to me. JoelleJay (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are incorrect. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. - Scarpy (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 7 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) CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt High School (Wyoming)[edit]

Roosevelt High School (Wyoming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes Wikipedia:GNG and WP:NORG. Please review before nominating an article for deletion. BurgeoningContracting 18:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FYI, until 2016 this school was located in a 1922 building located on the National Register of Historic Places in the US, see Roosevelt School (Casper, Wyoming).--Milowent • hasspoken 18:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Following the little consensus on HS deletion there exists at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it is good to look at the general notability and org notability criteria. But in the latter, there is the section WP:INHERITORG which tells that this school's notability is not inherited. Finally, as I said before, I could not find any significant coverage and the article's content is misrepresented by the sources.
    Though, I think it would definitely make sense to mention this school in the building's article. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:18, 7 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) (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moral example[edit]

Moral example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICT/WP:SYNTH, no evidence from scholarly literature that this is used systematically as a term rather than just being a common figure of speech, all of the results on scholar seem to be using it in a more general sense. - car chasm (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unsourced and poorly written, and a quick search doesn't find any usage of it as its own thing. I did find this article which either the article was plagiarized from or plagiarized from it. But it doesn't seem like a reliable source in any case. WPscatter t/c 17:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a WP:CV issue, we should WP:CSD it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prob keep - whilst I agree that the page isn't much more than a few ideas in a stub, I'm not sure I agree that RS showing notability do not exist. There are, for example, sources in Christian theology discussing the concept 1, sources discussing the status of Nazi resisters in Germany 2 the use of Russian classics 3 and so on. My only hesitation is the extent to which these ideas have much commonality with regard to the core concept. JMWt (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable subject, pages of Scholar hits. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - while a lot of the Google Scholar results are just using it as a phrase and don't rise above WP:DICDEF, there's enough that address it as a concept, such as [28], [29], [30] to meet notability guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 02:17, 7 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 04:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Holmes (sailor)[edit]

Sam Holmes (sailor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Youtuber whose claim to fame appears to be a few newspaper Norwegian news articles about his bad behavior; prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: article is well sourced, has a profile from a local TV news station about him leaving the US and sailing for Europe. The uproar over his actions in the Arctic were covered by a local newspaper and a national magazine from different reporters. If you check the references I translated the important parts of the Norwegian sources into English. Appears to be (good enough) sourced and passes WP:GNG. I’m traveling right now and doing this on my phone so please forgive my lack of links and tables I normally include during AfD. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 16:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in Dagobadet (spelling?) is solid, the rest add to notability. Not a super strong case, just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non notable YouTuber. He creates controversy to make himself famous. fails WP:GNG. Gothamk (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:12, 7 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) CycloneYoris talk! 07:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neue Schenke[edit]

Neue Schenke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability issues. Citadeol (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are the notability issues? I see three references cited. Garuda3 (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Revenge and Harassment by Citadeol user. Lectonar (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable point on a railway map. Nothing historical happened here, there is no preserved station building, nothing that would contribute to GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO; does not seem to be particularly notable as a train station. Not every trans station is automatically notable, and this one does not appear to be the subject of substantial source texts. --Jayron32 13:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article can be expanded from the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia. The station building still exists, although it has been sold and is no longer part of the railway. A hundred-year-old train station is likely to have been the subject of lots of media coverage over the years. Perhaps someone with online access to old German newspapers through their school or employer could find some more references. Also, I added an infobox, which should make the article more accessible. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. No viable reason put forward for deletion other than a two-word opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It deserves a page due to its historical, geographical, and cultural significance. This stop also plays a crucial role in local transportation. I've augmented the page with new facts and credible sources to boost its relevance on Wikipedia. Moreover, plans are underway to modernize and rebuild the stop in the upcoming years, proving its importance is not diminishing. --BoraVoro (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. This close is without prejudice to the creation of a redirect from this title to the target, as this was raised but not thoroughly discussed. signed, Rosguill talk 01:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956[edit]

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles do not meet WP:INDISCRIMINATE - "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Masses of statistics and excessive detail suitable for cricket biographies and almanacs, not dedicated Wikipedia articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is merely prosified statistics which do not add anything to an understanding of Keith Miller. Merely being true does not mean something is necessarily fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. His participation as part of the 1956 team is not by any definition a distinct subject worthy of a separate article, but instead born out of the Cricket Insanity which dictated as many forks as possible be created about Australian cricket players. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone wants to redirect this to Keith Miller for whatever reason, that's fine by me. As long as this cruft gets removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prosified stats, WP:NOT (t · c) buidhe 03:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Trainsandotherthings puts it well, there is nothing distinct about these 2 years of his career that warrants a separate article. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above and per the Neil Harvey blahblahblah AfD. Exhaustive detail belongs in fandom articles, not wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to suitable location in Keith Miller page. Seems clear that the opinion are that these extensive pages should no longer exist, however we should at least save the history by redirecting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Curve (shopping mall)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Curve (shopping mall) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD had minimal participation, and WP:NPASR was advised. I believe we're now more strict on shopping mall notability. Could not find significant coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 7 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 01:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja presence in Myanmar[edit]

Ninja presence in Myanmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reasons as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninja presence in Russia. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Japan, and Myanmar. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the time of its creation, the article's lede has read: "Despite the fact that there is no evidence of traditional ninja existence in Burma...." and the remainder is mostly related to two people who have been described as quote "the last ninja" unquote, which is more a turn of phrase than a serious claim that there were ninjas in World War II Japan or that they exist in Japan today. Dekimasuよ! 02:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Using the same approach as went into creating this we might equally create “Ninjas on the Titanic”, “Ninjas in Portland, Oregon” or any number of similar non topics. Mccapra (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dekimasu and Mccapra. Just a jumble of information with tenuous links pretending to be an article. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same as the "ninjas in Russia" article. Bad OR and synthesis of other facts. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incoherent topic, seemingly just random references to vaguely related concepts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. If anything this should be a subsection of another article or the information should get distributed to relevant articles EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja presence in Russia[edit]

Ninja presence in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability: Article cites no English-language RS and appears to be a jumble of information attempting to demonstrate the validity of the topic. Also lacks a reasonably encyclopedic viewpoint as to what is relevant to the topic. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Japan, and Russia. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. References do not have to be in English to be valid. There is a corresponding article in the Japanese Wikipedia at ja:忍者とロシアの関係 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone in Burkina Faso is interested in ninjas and does some research on them, and maybe writes a play about them, that isn’t the basis for an article about a “Ninja presence in Burkina Faso.” Mccapra (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mccapra. Just a jumble of information with tenuous links pretending to be an article. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strange synthesis of OR and random quotes. The Portuguese or the Dutch traders were likely the first Europeans in the area anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article topic is unclear, and I don't see why "Ninja research in Russia" would be a notable topic anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Dead or Alive characters. If there is content worth merging, it can be retrieved from the page history. ✗plicit 01:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel (Ninja Gaiden)[edit]

Rachel (Ninja Gaiden) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article's entire reception section mostly contains passing mention from the game reviews, listicles, failing SIGCOV and showing no signs of notability on its own like Momiji. It was also heavily refbombed. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there’s no consensus what or why to merge. This is just another WP:MILL vg character who’s primarily popular for having breasts (one of the sources is literally “A YEAR IN BREASTS”) Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_7&oldid=1160244741"