Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 02 May 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Pablo Honey or a subsection thereof. History is thereunder to determine what is salvageable to merge. Star Mississippi 02:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone Can Play Guitar[edit]

Anyone Can Play Guitar (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:NSONG. Yes it's a single by a major band — but in 10 years or so of extensively researching Radiohead for Wikipedia, I have never found significant coverage of this song. Pretty much everything worthwhile I've ever found is already in the main Pablo Honey article. Popcornfud (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pablo Honey per nomination. This article has nothing to merge that would be worth including in the album page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thomas Dekker (actor). ✗plicit 12:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whore (2008 film)[edit]

Whore (2008 film) (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)

Except ImDb and its mirrors, I can not find any source except one of dubious quality (see page TP) -- the only one actually stating they saw the film); or a simple mention of the title on a fan site, or in a listing of Megan Fox's worst films. Is this a real project that never came to be finished/released or even to start? Is this a mere hoax? A bit of both? The promotional poster that has spread on the Internet and alleged cast and content do not seem to fit together and I came to believe this could be a hoax taking advantage of the existence of the work of a much earlier Thomas Dekker, The Honest Whore. The page was created before supposed filming was over; that was in April 2008 by User:Tabercil, who is still the main contributor to the page so far. — MY, OH, MY! 16:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: OK... I found the following:
  1. A a 2008 article from The Hollywood Reporter that mentions that Dekker is working on the film and it'll released in October.
  2. A September 2008 Boston Herald article that briefly mentions filming wrapped. It's paywalled, but the Google preview mentioned this movie.
  3. Gawker. Obviously not a RS, but it's also from 2008
  4. Videogum/Stereogum, also from 2008.
The general gist I got from this was that it exists, but was never actually released. There were plans on releasing it via film festivals in October 2008, but I can't find any mention beyond the above announcements that the film exists. I suppose it's possible that Dekker and company released this to a small film festival, where it went unnoticed, but it's highly unlikely. There are enough "big name" people involved to where someone would have at least mentioned it was screening. Megan Fox had just released Transformers the year before and Dekker was on several well known TV shows AND it would have been Dekker's first film, so any film festival coordinator worth their salt would have hyped that up pretty solidly. It's more likely that Dekker chose not to release it for one reason or another.
So, not a hoax but also not a notable film. At best it could be listed on Dekker's page, but it doesn't need its own article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Apparently Netflix has an entry for this movie [1], whether it was ever available in any region or was just a placeholder, I don't know. Also found Variety article covering Dekker, where he talks about the film. Ellwood, Gregory. Oct 2, 2008. Right now I'm between delete and redirect to Thomas Dekker (actor). WikiVirusC(talk) 22:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Díaz[edit]

Eileen Díaz (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:NOLY and WP:NGYMNASTICS. I was looking for a redirect like Gymnastics at the 1996 Summer Olympics but in this case oppose redirect as the Olympics article doesn't name her. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Uttam Shaheed Samad School and College[edit]

Bir Uttam Shaheed Samad School and College (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 by a single purpose account has been sent to draft several times, but as far as I can tell in a WP:BEFORE search it fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Uncle Spock (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment article creator has now admitted paid editing at their talk page. Uncle Spock (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV from IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of youngest birth mothers[edit]

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

We do not, have never had, and should never have, an article called List of victims of child sexual abuse. Why do we have these pages? It's encyclopedic to state "puberty starts at age ... on average, but in rare cases pregnancy has been known to occur at ages as low as..." But once it's established that a 6-year has given birth, what encyclopedic purpose is served by a long list of named 10-year-old children? Before anyone says "just remove the names, then", the names are still often one click away in the sources. These articles cannot be made compliant with WP:BLPNAME, and are WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTNEWS regardless. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the concerns brought up by nom, neither group seems to meet the requirements of WP:NLIST. Probably better off removed. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As nom states, huge BLP issues with naming (or linking to sources naming) minors. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete- Violates WP:NLIST and is entirely inappropriate and should not exist anywhere on the internet. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:GRATUITOUS as a list of underage rape victims won't add to people's understanding of topics like reproductive capacity or child sex abuse. Right now, it contains WP:BLPNAME content and will inevitably attract more BLP content. As LibStar says the issue of identifiable victims will persist even if the list is anonymized or pseudonymized, so long as it's sourced. Hard to see WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it's not a question of whether these cases are notable or cohere as a group, but there seems to be no encyclopedic purpose served by keeping it here. Oblivy (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Youngest mother redirects to list of youngest birth mothers. If the article is deleted, we should probably decide ahead of time whether we want to retarget the redirect to the person currently listed as the youngest confirmed mother, seeing as that person appears to be notable. This issue does not exist with the list of youngest birth fathers article, as youngest father is at present a WP:REDLINK and the person currently listed as the youngest confirmed father does not have a stand-alone article. TompaDompa (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I don't think that redlink has anything to do with whether there's a BLP issue. See WP:MINORS which is an essay, but makes the case that naming underage people should be treated with utmost caution. Oblivy (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One additional thought - looking again at youngest fathers, mathematically there don't seem to be any named individuals who are still under-18. But my point above about gratuitous still applies here. Oblivy (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be making a point that is orthogonal to the one I'm making, which is about what to do with the existing redirects. Youngest mother could be deleted or retargeted. Youngest father, on the other hand, cannot be deleted since it doesn't exist and is not a candidate for "retargeting" in the corresponding manner since it does not have a plausible target besides the list. TompaDompa (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I see your point now. Oblivy (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST, WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTNP, WP:BLPNAME, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. CastJared (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Entirely inappropriate to have such lists, same reasoning as basically everyone above. Also not sure about the redirect issue: if the person is notable for this specifically, it could make sense, although it might not be great to have a redirect of a generic term to the specific person currently listed as that term, as these can change. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about retargeting it to Precocious puberty § Central? The youngest known case is listed there. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CastJared; this list is unbefitting of any serious encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Created back in mid-May 2007 by now-long-gone Severa (talk · contribs) (as one of her last submissions); perhaps WP:Missing Wikipedians may be interested? May have lasted 16 years on WP, but with much tighter site standards nowadays (cited above) and the controversial subject matter at hand...No telling where/how else you'll find that after this debate. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:TNT. I think in 2007, this would have passed AfD, but I think the consensus has changed so that we have deleted, for example, lots of articles about child actors and crime victims (as is here the case). Also, BLP has become a lot stricter in the intervening 16 years. Finally, the formatting is problematic and would require a total re-writing. I would not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:G5‎. (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 15:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Jagannath Guruji[edit]

Pandit Jagannath Guruji (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)

Source review:

  1. Non independent, interview
  2. Passing mention
  3. Blatant promo (mentions it is part of a 'featured content programme')
  4. Non independent
  5. Non independent, interview
  6. Non independent
  7. Blatant promo
  8. Non independent, interview
  9. Non independent, relies on quote
  10. Non reliable
  11. Blatant promo

These are the references' states as of Special:Diff/1153035210. Of course, feel free to disagree, but none of these sources meet GNG. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter O'Connell[edit]

Peter O'Connell (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)

Completely unreferenced biography of a film technician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The only notability claim in evidence here is that he exists, which isn't enough in and of itself -- he would need to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage about his work, and/or major award wins or nominations, to be notable for this. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only found coverages of other people with the same name, having professions ranging from judge to researchers. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Socialist Caucus[edit]

Libertarian Socialist Caucus (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 is a disambiguation page for two articles that don't exist. There aren't sections within the mentioned broader articles about these caucuses, nor are they even mentioned by name in those articles. I'm not sure what the purpose is for a disambiguation page when there's not even any ambiguity in the first place. Nothing even links here. Grnrchst (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No reason to have a disambiguation page until the two items get their own articles. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems especially odd that there doesn't appear to be any explicit information about the "Libertarian Socialist Caucus" on either of those pages. How do we even know the disambiguation information is correct? If they are equal in status, it can't be a redirect, either. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. No sense in having a disambiguation page for non-existent articles, especially when neither of the broader articles referenced on the page contain any explicit information about the subject. Sal2100 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per usual practice for a dab with two entries. I would not oppose a redirect to Horseshoe theory or one of the links. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parrish Baker[edit]

Parrish Baker (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 comic book artist. Probable COI. article text basically details how the subject is unknown outside of his home town and is non-notable. Jdcooper (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Out of the three links in External links section, the first two seem to be personal blogs, or at the very least not RS. The last link was defunct. No significant coverage of the subject was found. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find any reliable sources to add to this unsourced BLP. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Ulderici[edit]

Fabio Ulderici (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 BIO. BEFORE showed promo, database, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  03:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above is IS RS with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  14:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Summarizing what's on the links isn't discrediting the page, you are just highlighting that he is getting significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Young manager with ongoing career at elite women's level... Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Article needs sources. we have none. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Managers being hired and fired is routine coverage. The sources relating to his sacking at Parma largely quote from a press release from Parma. Dougal18 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of any sort of extensive coverage in RS. Name drops and one lines don't cut it for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the policy that is being missed here, is ROUTINE doesn't extend to extensive articles about firing the coach. Here's another one. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The online coverage is almost entirely derived from club's press releases and press conferences (most of them from his hiring by Empoli or Parma, or from his firing by Parma); it is NOT independent of the subject because it comes directly from him or his employer. The best coverage I could find was this but it is still highly derivative of the club's press release and the subject's own statements. If this manager was really notable, I would expect to find some coverage of his success at Empoli (post-hiring) or something about his struggles at Parma (pre-firing); but I could not (except for routine match reports). Jogurney (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient non-routine coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Found not much coverage other than news about teams changing their coach. Even if we accept those as suitable sources, there are still too little to write about. The subject can be mentioned in the articles of the teams he coached, a stand alone article is not necessary. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What sources exist don't have significant coverage, most are routine or are passing while talking of the team. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the coverage is unsatisfactory. For example, Forza Parma is clearly not an independent, reliable source being a fan site. Total Italian Football appears to be reliable but the coverage is mostly about Parma's results and does not really address Ulderici in detail as an individual. The deletion arguments are stronger here and every source brought forward has been dismissed based on guidelines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. There is definitely no consensus to delete the article. There are proposals to merge the article and to rename the article. Further discussion of these issues should take place on the relevant talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De Mirage[edit]

De Mirage (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 significant coverage from reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. – Pbrks (t • c) 05:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks (t • c) 05:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per WP:NEXIST. I have not played Counter-Strike in a while, but Mirage seems to be one of the most played maps in the game currently, analogous to Dust II, which already has its own page. It seems to be just scraping by notability, with sources like: SIGCOV 1, SIGCOV 2, Iffy coverage here. While it's not a firm "keep" I am dubious it should be deleted due to the actual opinion based commentary shown in sources. The page should be moved to Mirage (Counter-Strike), though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also state that Inferno (Counter-Strike) seems even more notable than Mirage due to its longstanding nature. There are several instances of SIGCOV: [2] [3] [4] and one more that may not be but is still a reliable source [5]. I might think about making that article at some point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks notability and good sources. Aintabli (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Senator, I served on de_dust2. I knew de_dust2. de_dust2 was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no de_dust2. (Per nom, the sources just aren't there for an individual level like this. It simply doesn't have the legacy or influence as dust.) Axem Titanium (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Zxcvbnm found enough sources to meet GNG, just barely. Alternately, this could be moved to draft-space until someone adds a couple more sources, but I do not see why we would not keep it here. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as an unnecessary spin out more fitting of a fan wiki. Both the sourcing and resulting prose are very weak. Take what little it is an add it as an aside on the parent article. Fully support a delete instead if that's what it takes to get a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73: If possible, would you do a source analysis of what's already in the article and say how each source fails the criteria? I am highly concerned the article is being judged prematurely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing would need to be astounding to change my mind. I personally don't believe it makes sense to split out aspects of games like "levels" from their respective games, as they generally don't have any independent notability outside of the game itself. It makes more sense to cover them in the context of their respective game. And the current content of the reception section is so mundane and bloated I don't believe it really belongs anywhere, let alone justification for keeping an article. It takes a massive paragraph to say basically say "They said it was good but got dull over time." Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My main question is whether you still believe the article fails GNG outright and should be deleted, as you stated in your !vote. Saying that an article should be merged (by your opinion that it is mundane), but could be kept, is different than saying you will support deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If ESPN calls it the most important map in the game, and Red Bull wrote an entire article on the topic. I'm not clear why this doesn't demonstrate both GNG and the standalone article issue. So I'm for keep. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the VG WP has fairly high standards for what constitutes notability in the context of a single level of a video game and a few mentions from ESPN's esports coverage leaves something to be desired. Red Bull is of course an energy drink company, not a news outlet, so I would consider that source worth precisely zero, since it's just promotional in nature (it indirectly promotes their sponsored esports team). Dot Esports is a situational source at best. We know what notability looks like for video game levels. It looks like Dust II, a level with a long and storied legacy and extensive coverage of its design and development, not this. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    de_mirage is significantly covered in form of videos. WP:THREE: [6] [7] [8] Merko (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes these youtube videos reliable sources? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing. Though not specifically covered, SELF seems to be the best fit.   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ESPN and Red Bull are both major sports reporting agencies that cover esports. I disagree with your assessment, especially on Red Bull. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to an editorial policy at Red Bull that establishes that it's a reliable source and not just a corporate mouthpiece? I'm not seeing any discussions on WP:RSN. And if we look at the actual text of the article on Red Bull, it's just a game guide for how to play this video game level. Do video game instruction manuals confer notability? If we take the ESPN article at face value, that's one valid source. Where's the other two for WP:THREE? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Red Bull was vouched for as reliable by a Wikipedia admin, and was separately arrived on as a reliable source in the past. It does not appear to be a "corporate mouthpiece, of course" like you randomly claim. The text is not solely a gameguide either, but has several paragraphs about the map in general. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If a consensus to keep this page is reached, I will suggest a renaming into Mirage (Counter-Strike map) or something similar as first suggested by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. "De Mirage" is a bad title. Merko (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I took a look at sources using the search engine from VG/RS, and there seems to be a lot of coverage of the map from outlets like Dot Esports, PCGamesN, and PC Gamer. I want to say Keep, but I've seen AfDs where people easily dismiss coverage due to Wikipedia not being a game guide and sources often leaning towards it. Here's a couple more sources to evaluate for y'all.
  1. https://www.pcgamesn.com/counter-strike-global-offensive/csgo-mirage-story-mode-mod
  2. https://dotesports.com/counter-strike/news/mirage-inferno-dust-2-most-popular-csgo-maps
  3. https://dotesports.com/counter-strike/news/mirage-csgo-changes-june-2018-game-update-24786
  4. https://www.pcgamer.com/csgo-mirage-ct-guide/
  5. https://www.pcgamer.com/csgo-mirage-terrorist-guide/

PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PantheonRadiance: they are not RS. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The ESPN article is somewhat nice to have—more length than I would expect. Most other articles have the map as the primary topic, as opposed to passing mentions in, say, a listicle. Unfortunately no book sources, which would have been nice. I would hope that there exists a game design book somewhere that talks about it. SWinxy (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I went though and added some sources including an academic article, a thesis, and a few news sources. Just note that Newspapers.com is down so I wasn't able to use that. to the article and expanded things a bit. This is an easy keep for me as the map has been a staple of CS:GO community and has been featured in almost all of the professional level CS:GO Major tournaments for years. There is significant commentary about the map in pro play and within the community. The map is considered one of the key tradionaly designed maps in CS:GO. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would also support a merge into a list of CS:GO maps. I think that this map just passes, it's a weak but firm pass, but could also see that it could do better as well fleshed out list entry. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes: Newspapers.com is no longer down, if you want to use that. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the main problem is that a list of CSGO maps risks becoming a WP:COATRACK compared to individual map articles. In other words there will be endless arguments about which map should be added and it risks overlooking the actual notable maps. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the information identified by Dr vulpes below Jack4576 (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nayeemul Islam Khan[edit]

Nayeemul Islam 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)

Does not appear notable based on the sources. I also did a WP:BEFORE and cannot find anything significant. Seems like the claim to notability is being the editor of a newspaper. CNMall41 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree that his claim of notability is in being an editor, and he is a high-profile one. A google news search turns up abundant news refs for him - a lot of name checks and quotes as well as more in-depth coverage but he is clearly an important national figure. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Are you able to list which ones would be considered towards notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d go with 1 and 2, plus the fact that his attempted murder gained significant coverage such as 3. There’s more and I’m still looking. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot locate the editorial standards of the first but assuming they have them it would be an acceptable reference. The second is simply him being quoted though. I initially thought the attack would be notable but if you look at the sources, it is simply a mention of an incident with him that is placed in articles about turmoil for journalists in the region. Not specific about him. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On one hand, there are 250 words about him in the cited book. Shameem Mahmud (one time assistant professor of communication and media studies at the University of Dhaka) credited Khan with "introducing modern journalism to the country" (c. 1990) and later with pioneering "a new genre of newspaper in the market" (c. 2004). Mahmud wrote about the audience Khan targeted, the use of a more urban and colloquial language, the printing of newspapers shorter and lower priced than the established ones, and about what other newspapers then followed the same editorial and business plan. That's much more attention than the average Bangladeshi newspaper editor receives.
On the other hand, Wikipedia's article seems to have been written to portray him in a favorable light, with no regard for WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:N. BdEdit, the original author, appears closely connected with the subject, judging from the photos they've taken of him over a multi-year period and the troubling amount of unsourced content. Looking at early versions, almost none of it was sourced. Although some of that has been removed, and some citations have been added over the years, the essential slant of the article remains the same. Perhaps Wikipedia should have an article about him, but not this one. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tasersuatsiaq Fjord[edit]

Tasersuatsiaq Fjord (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. I can find no sources that say anything about this fjord, even regarding its existence, that are not mirror sites or cite this article as a reference for their information regarding this fjord. There is certainly a Tasersuatsiaq Lake, but I can find no reference of Tasersuatsiaq Fjord. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely referring to Kangerlussuaq Fjord. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Verbotene Liebe#Cast and characters. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Verbotene Liebe minor characters[edit]

List of Verbotene Liebe minor characters (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)

It makes zero sense to have this article while List of Verbotene Liebe characters got redirected to Verbotene Liebe (the TV show) after a my PROD (here). The PROD for this list of minor characters (nominated for AfD here) was, however, challenged. Frankly, it would make sense to reverse that (redirect this minor list into a restored list of all characters, which likely should be merged with List of Verbotene Liebe cast members); that said, the main list had no references and it might not survive an AfD anyway. Ping User:TAnthony who is the only other editor I think interested in trying to clean up this mess. Should we keep one list, or none at all? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Germany. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping the one list, which can be then redirected if deemed that coverage is lacking, seems a solid idea. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* or *merge with the deleted page* – deleting and redirecting the main article would be a very bad idea as there are some many characters that can not be summarised in the article. I will try to improve it in the next few months too. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Verbotene Liebe. Sources do not even bill entries as "minor" so who/what does? Non-notable list. – Meena • 10:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending future reorgs, or Redirect to Verbotene Liebe if its existence for the near future is so bothersome. For the record, List of Verbotene Liebe characters was redirected because it was a bare list redundant of List of Verbotene Liebe cast members. There was no actual descriptive content. This list at least has many primary sources. Technically the worthiness of one list should not impact the worthiness of another. To me, the point of a standalone character list is to provide readers with a little more detail on notable characters that are mentioned/linked in other articles. Considering that we have redirected so many Verbotene Liebe character articles (rightfully so, they were plot heavy and under sourced), my plan in the future is to revive List of Verbotene Liebe characters, with concise overviews of the more important characters in a more standard format, like List of The Last of Us (TV series) characters. This list of minor characters would be a complementary list to that, as a complete combined list would be too long. But if consensus finds that we should redirect at this time, we can revive it in some form (probably trimmed) later if appropriate.— TAnthonyTalk 17:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per all. Neutral on the target. The main list would make sense as a target, but it may be worth a deletion discussion too. Neither article has enough sources for notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Verbotene Liebe. Fails LISTN, no sources show this discussed as a group. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. Article does serve any purpose in WP:CLN (AOAL). Filled with OR.  // Timothy :: talk  03:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I can not discern what some editors are advocating here. The nomination statement mentions three separate lists of either characters or cast members so please be specific when you are talking about merging a list with another list which lists you are talking about. "List" isn't specific enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article says minor characters. Minor characters are not notable. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Boise mayoral election[edit]

2023 Boise mayoral election (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 election is not notable and is of egligible importance.

The 2023 Boise election has not established individual notability for this election. The lack of reliable sources and sources overall are a by-product of this.

Even though there have been previous Boise elections, that does not automatically qualify the 2023 election to be so. It is possible that it may become notable in the WP:FUTURE but we have no way of knowing that. The election could be easily summarized as a section in Lauren McLean's article.

This project does not need an entire article dedicated to a non-noteworthy election. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. We can come back and check if the draft is worth publishing after the event. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above and, further, I don't see the point in deleting a page now to re-create it in November. And it may be a container for important information that develops before the election without all the hurdle of re-creating the page. MaeseLeon (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (although from a personal level, reluctantly because I think local electoral coverage should be wider as I argued in my AfD example here) per the consensus established at the 2023 Carmel mayoral deletion discussion. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, the election hasn't established national coverage or any kind of lasting effect from it, and it is a routine mayoral election. We won't know if it will reach that threshold until after the election is finished, and can be re-created if it does, but for now, it fails to meet the mark. Nomader (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost every election is by definition routine. The issue is not whether an election is routine, but whether it is notable, which is determined by sourcing. Further, one outcome of an AfD on a mayoral election is not a generalised consensus, especially given the difference in significance of a mayoral election in a state capital versus that of a peripheral municipality with less than half the population. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that in this case, it's a routine re-election campaign and could easily be summarized in the incumbent Mayor's article at the present time -- it's probably as much WP:TOOSOON as much as WP:EVENTCRIT. If it receives national or international coverage, or becomes a competitive election with enduring significance, it should be recreated without prejudice (really should stress that the level for inclusion for this should be low -- even a little bit of coverage I think should meet the mark). Right now it's just routine local coverage of an election. Nomader (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goldsztajn There is nothing in the article to show any sort of notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The current state of the article has no bearing on notability; AfD is not cleanup. WP:NEXIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of in-depth sources, as noted above, for a state capital, and when we delete articles on elections, it results in the loss of articles that were, or could be, redirected. The danger is ultimately that there's information that ends up in endless loops of redirects and red links, which harms our core readership. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hardly call Ballotpedia an in-depth source. Not to mention there are only three sources on the article. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedied G5‎ by Ponyo on 11:39, 9 May 2023. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canelo Álvarez vs. James Kirkland[edit]

Canelo Álvarez vs. James Kirkland (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)

Beyond simple descriptions of the fight I can't find sourcing that can support keeping the article. This [13] mentions it, but that's all. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b What about the sources in the article? Chocobiscuits (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are simply database listings, aren't useful for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Are they? Chocobiscuits (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The were yes. Oaktree b (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Please withdraw this nomination, as new sources have been added. Chocobiscuits (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll let it play out, I'm confident in the AfD process. We still need to discuss the new sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harshit Shrivastav[edit]

Harshit Shrivastav (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)

Appears PROMO with flowery language. I can't find sourcing for this individual in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because Harshit Srivastava is very good people and has worked with many big actors and actresses. Jelasa Eding Jelasa Eding (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don’t understand Wiki standards. BostonMensa (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Roberts (radio broadcaster)[edit]

Gary Roberts (radio broadcaster) (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 written heavily as advertisement. The main reason for this proposal is that the main contributor has made extensive edits almost entirely and only on Australian radio pages and especially those that are included in this page. This may lead to speculations about serious violations of terms of use, including possibly paid contributions. Chiserc (talk) 16:42, 26 April 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, Salvio giuliano 20:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTINHERITED. Much of the page is a mess, which concerns who is bosses were, and how much they paid for the stations. I'm confused by what would remain. Did he work the highly sough-after drive time slot? Bearian (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see coverage in non-independent sources like Mediaweek. But nothing to push him over the line for WP:BIO. Possible WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.‎. The nominator is evading a block, and nobody else has offered an opinion. Girth Summit (blether) 09:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edén Muñoz[edit]

Edén Muñoz (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)

Outside of Calibre 50, he has not achieved any kind of fame, Calibre 50 already has its own page, so I do not see the relevancy on this article, plus it barely has any sources. 2806:105E:14:8EDE:E475:1C48:BD8:B6D0 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tattoo (Haven)[edit]

The tattoo (Haven) (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)

Entirely unsourced, entirely in-universe article, with no evidence of standalone coverage. No mention at parent article, so not suitable for redirection. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Cloake[edit]

Felicity Cloake (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)

Journalist, doesn't pass GNG Gugrak (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danir AB[edit]

Danir AB (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)

search for sources disclosed only directory listings; appears to fail WP:CORP ~TPW 16:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Conflicts of interest and seems like advertising and upon Googling I found 2 references that has only mentioned about them.
Hukumat Namanzoor (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: An article on part of a businessman's several ventures; this article's content largely replicates that summarised more concisely at Dan_Olofsson#The_Danir_Group. Leaving aside any COI in the article's origins, I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate the notability needed for a distinct article. (A redirect to the Olofsson article could provide an option.) AllyD (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pekar[edit]

Jonathan Pekar (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)

I accepted this draft at AfC some years back as a rookie, mainly based on the Emmy, but I no longer think they pass the WP:NBIO criteria - certainly not WP:GNG, nor WP:NACTOR as no significant roles. It could be argued that they pass WP:ANYBIO due to the Emmy but that is not an automatic pass. Author is a single-purpose editor and likely to be autobiographical. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not much sourcing, and not much of a career. An internet search brings up IMDB and this Wikipedia article, but that's about it. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Monastic community of Mount Athos or a subsection thereof. While there is consensus for the material to remain, there is not a consensus for it to remain a separate article as the myth relates to his monastic life. Star Mississippi 03:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mihailo Tolotos[edit]

Mihailo Tolotos (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 is a classic case of WP:BIO1E. What makes the subject worthy of inclusion is that the monastic community excluded women, which is merely exemplified by the fact that this monk reportedly never saw a woman. The story that this particular monk never saw a woman is not credible because at least one woman was present at his birth (to be fair to the author, the article never claims that - just that it was reported as such) but this illustrates that the reporting of his death was sensationalist. Where this belongs is in an article about the community, and it is already at Monastic community of Mount Athos#Late modern times. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit note: I corrected the link to the notability guideline WP:BIO1E above post-nomination. Dorsetonian (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This story pops up in the news cycle every so often, as recently as the last few weeks. It is sensationalist, but he seems to have sustained coverage almost 100 years later. Likely at GNG simply for that reason, we have a fair bit of information about his life. He may be notable for one event, but he's still talked about 100 years later, so is getting sustained coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Greece. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: There's a DYK on the main page right now for a guy best known for being a "miser" who lacked nearly the sustained coverage as this monk. However, the quality of the sources and quantity which provide significant coverage is a tad dicey. I lean keep, but could be swayed to delete based on the sourcing deficiencies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious delete since I take his story with a pinch of salt, see talk. PatGallacher (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the story of his life is more myth than truth, but that doesn't mean it isn't covered enough to meet WP:GNG. I am opposed to a merge to Monastic community of Mount Athos (the main article), but might support some other page specifically focused on individuals of Mount Athos monasteries. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sojourner's commentary on the sourcing is accurate. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:GNG with sustained coverage in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monastic community of Mount Athos#Late modern times.
    It looks to me like we have three pieces of information about this man: 1) his approximate year of birth; 2) his approximate date of death; and 3) his place of residence. Our only source for this information is a five-sentence obituary in a U.S. newspaper. Every other source that I can find is simply a regurgitation of this obituary. Some sources add additional bits of information, such as that his mother died when he was four hours old, but it's not clear where this information is coming from; none of the sources containing these elaborations are WP:RS in my opinion. One of them candidly admits that we do not have enough evidence to say for certain that Tolotos even existed. The image used in our article is, according to its file page, taken from this Twitter post, which does not give any explanation of where the photo comes from.
    What little verifiable information we have about Tolotos – i.e. that a newspaper reported on his death – is already contained in Monastic community of Mount Athos#Late modern times; even if both his existence and his notability were established, I still wouldn't see the need for a separate article on this figure. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish those !voting keep would provide links to some of these reliable sources they're finding. In fact, sorry, I don't want to overload this discussion, but I think some source analysis is called for. Here's an analysis of the sources currently present in the article:
    Weird Universe & Vintage Everyday – Self-published blogs
    BBC News & TIME – These don't mention Tolotos at all
    Constable Colgan's Connectoscope – I'm not sure about Unbound Publishing (apparently pledge-based), but Tolotos appears in several other trivia collections of this kind. We don't usually consider books like this reliable for anything about which the author is not an expert; the author of this one is a retired Scotland Yard constable.
    Edinburgh Daily Courier – This is the five-sentence report discussed above. I've searched Newspapers.com and found the same report (with identical wording) appearing in British newspapers from 19th Sept 1938 (so the death date in the article is wrong). Some of these papers cite Reuters as their souce. I'm happy to accept Reuters as reliable, but this is still only one source, regardless of how many times it is regurgitated in local papers.
    Historic Mysteries – Unsure about the reliability of this one; in any event, it doesn't contain any additional information about Tolotos that isn’t found in the Reuters report.
    It is incumbent on those !voting keep to explain why they think these sources are reliable, or to provide additional sources. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's received coverage in several books and RS news stories. The reporting and some of the details of his life may be exaggerated, but it passes WP:GNG at least. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG - clearly he was notable worldwide in the 1920s and 1930s. The longstanding consensus is the adage that "once notable, a person is always notable." Bearian (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, the repetition of the same Reuters report in multiple newspapers does not constitute worldwide notability. Footnote #4 of WP:GNG says: It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of whether his claim to fame is actually true, the combination of the various sources seems to just scrape by on WP:GNG. I can see an argument for merging it into Monastic community of Mount Athos, but in my opinion there is enough content here for a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am reopening and relisting this AfD which I previously closed as "keep" for the following reasons, as posted on my talk page: After Sojourner in the earth engaged in a thorough assessment of the sources, the three subsequent "keep" opinions did not engage with this analysis and merely asserted that the sources were sufficient. To help the community arrive at an informed consensus about the quality of the sources at issue, they should instead have explained why they are of that opinion in view of Sojourner's arguments. Accordingly, I think we do not yet have rough consensus on the GNG issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was reopened at my suggestion. This article came to my attention when it showed up at WP:DYK. Fundamentally, there's a single source that says anything about Tolotos, i.e. the short wire story which was initially printed in The Edinburg Daily Courier and a few other papers. All of the other sources fall into two groups. There's a couple of articles in WP:RS (BBC and Time) which talk about the monastery but say nothing about Tolotos himself. Then there's a bunch low-qualty self-published blogs which got some churn out of the story. The Constable Colgan's Connectoscope: How One Thing Leads to Another isn't much better; it just regurgitates the same wire story, and was published by what's essentially a vanity press. If people are going to argue to keep this, they need to present WP:RS, not just assert that GNG is met because they story keeps showing up in supermarket tabloid quality blogs. As I noted on Sandstein's talk page, even the photo we have of him isn't reliably sourced to be him and was found on a twitter feed. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Per Sojourner and Roy. Numerous issues with source reliability and quality, plus a lack of SIGCOV (5 sentences announcing his death is barely anything). JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monastic community of Mount Athos#Late modern times. Per Sojourner's analysis; the sources available that actually state that he never saw a woman are too weak to support a potentially dubious claim. There's nothing here to definitively separate it from an urban legend and it's the only thing making him notable. The mention of the urban legend at the proposed redirect target seems like sufficient coverage. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 06:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:LASTING WP:SUSTAINED and notable legend. If someone can prove that this is a WP:NHOAX we would still have a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. We trust the reliable sources and his notability is derived from not seeing a woman which is a plausible explanation based on the locale. We can serve our readers by keeping the article as it accurately and neutrally covers the subject. We have a List of urban legends but I have not seen evidence that this is one of them. A redirect is an WP:ATD but I think keeping the article serves our readers. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LASTING says, Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. How does Tolotos meet that? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: My mistake on the guideline. WP:SUSTAINED is what I meant to say. I have corrected it above. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't see how we can accurately cover a topic where there's not even enough reliable sourcing to verifiably say if the only thing worth writing about is true. It may be plausible but an outlandish claim where the only RS is a single brief newswire report will always be dubious. WP:VNT and all. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, he's been receiving WP:SUSTAINED coverage from numerous publications even 80+ years after his death. I found some Greek sources that look potentially good: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Its a pretty decent case in my opinion for GNG, or at least NBASIC. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working from machine translations, but:
      • www.iefimerida.gr: based on the same reuters story, cited as found on reddit.
      • www.sdna.gr: another reuters rehash, as found on reddit.
      • dete.gr: another rehash of the same clipping.
      • koitamagazine.gr: cites storypick, which bills itself as "100% Pink Cows only so that you don’t have to go through the load of content produced every day on social media"
      • mikropragmata-lifo-gr: also cites storypick as their source
      • ethnos.gr: Ostensibly a real news source (Ethnos (newspaper) but looks more like a supermarket tabloid to me. The Tolotos story is described as Weird story, but true! and while not specifying where anything came from, it sure looks like yet another rehash of the same reuters piece.
      • pronews.gr: Another source that's ostensibly a newspaper, but based on the specific details presented, it's clear this is yet another rehash of the same reuters story.
    • In short, not a single one of these is a WP:RS, and not a single one leads me to believe it's anything more than the same sensational story dredged from other crappy clickbaity sites and recirculated.
    -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WP:NBASIC requires sources that are "intellectually independent of each other". Since these are all based on the same original reuters wire story, they fail that test. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I tried Find a Grave. It's WP:UGC, but sometimes it's got hints about other possible WP:RS you can track down. In this case, is all the same material. The Reuters article, the Nixon Furniture Company advertisement, the photo that's been floating around twitter with no reliable provenance. So no help there. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That argument would work for every "weird facts" phenomenon. Should we have an article on the person who made up the "you eat 8 spiders a year sleeping" myth? JoelleJay (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we have similar spider-eating articles. Spiders Georg. Lightburst (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not on the person who invented it, but that article should also be trashed as memecruft. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two editors are deleting much of the article in what I can only assume is an effort to bolster deletion rationales. Not good. Lightburst (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is removing unverifiable information "not good"? JoelleJay (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume I'm one of the editors you're referring to, though my only contribution so far has been to add a new reference to the article, and to remove some of the unsourced information which this new ref proved to be incorrect. As for RoySmith, his revisions of the article began during the interval before the AfD was reopened. Nevertheless, I think it's perfectly acceptable in this case to remove unverifiable information while the AfD is ongoing. The state of the article during the first round of this discussion was very misleading; it gave the impression that a fairly credible non-stub article could be made out of the available information, and this may have influenced the opinions of some of the keep !voters (this is ordinary human bias, to which we are all susceptible). Creating a more realistic version of the best kind of article that this article could ever be will, I hope, help editors to come to an informed decision. You are, of course, welcome to add more content to the article at any time, so long as it is reliably sourced. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should both observe WP:COAL. The wikilawyering in the AfD is excessive. For the most part, editors are intelligent and capable of assessing an article without our help. This AfD is already unusual in that a proper close was made and then based on a request from another administrator, the closing was undone. Lightburst (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should both observe WP:COAL. I'm happy to, that's why I hadn't commented before now in the re-opened AfD. But when someone accuses me of deleting much of the article in ... an effort to bolster deletion rationales, I feel I have the right to respond. I think you're right that we should both step back now. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep it seems that this is the same person (1875) A Man Who Never Saw a Woman - it is a somewhat more detailed account of a traveler who is said to have dined with the person - and it may be the earliest account. Even though he is not named in the source, the geographic location of Zeropotamo Monestary (Xeropotamou Monastery) at Mount Athos, also the age of the person (Guesstimate of 30-35 in 1875) squares. There is also the circumstances of the man's birth. And then we have his story which was published worldwide for years after. In 1949 Ripley's was covering him. In 1956 appeared in the Edmonton Journal. And most interesting, this article from 1934 that speaks about the horrific conditions in Athos. Younger monks chained to dead monks for three years, vermin in their hair and beards, etc. In 1925 the Pittsburgh Press stated that some of the monks had not seen a woman in 25 years. We have enough RS to verify and to provide a {{circa}} birthday and fill in some details and so I lean keep. If we choose to ignore reliable sources because of the incredulity of the claims, we are going against our own guidelines. Regarding Find a Grave - there is not a grave for any of the monks. Their bones are stacked on shelves with a sign that reads "Remember we have been like you. Some day you will be like us." Bruxton (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Monastic community of Mount Athos There is almost nothing meaningful to say about this person. Their notoriety is based around Mount Athos excluding women, where this maybe deserves a few sentences. It would need better sourcing than sensationalist international newspaper article from the 1930s to be a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Monastic community of Mount Athos per Hemiauchenia. It seems like there is an interesting story in here somewhere -- about how this story has lived on, if not about the man himself. But until some RS gets around to telling that story instead of just repeating the same questionable tale over and over, or until somebody finds some Greek sources with a bit more content, there just isn't much for us to say. And as things stand, the fragmentary story we have is going to be more useful to the reader in the general article on the community (as a story about that community) than in a standalone article (as a story about a guy about whom literally nothing else is known and who might not even have existed). -- Visviva (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per the above, does not really seem to be all that independently notable. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, it's a vaguely plausible search term. --Joy (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sojourner. One wire news report does not a Wikipedia article make, no matter how good speculation it makes. Galobtter (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While there was at least one female human present at his birth (assuming that his birth parent was not trans), that does not mean that he necessarily saw one there. Babies normally keep their eyes closed for the first few minutes of life... and who can blame 'em? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing, with no prejudice against a renomination, made with a valid deletion rationale. The reason given in the nomination, however, is not a valid reason for deletion under deletion policy.. Courcelles (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Kremlin drone attack[edit]

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

Per WP:DENY. This was obviously a false flag operation by the Russian government to escalate the war further, as news sources are reporting on the validity of this incident. Denying recognition to the Kremlin for now seems like the better option. A Good Believer (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC) — A Good Believer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • keep This is not about "vandals and trolls", as WP:DENY holds, but an incident that happened (given the existing footage). Whether or not it was a false flag operation does not enter into the equation, and, I might add, is anything but obvious to me. If it was, the article should report it, if not ditto. Best I can do is WP:NOTNEWS. Kleuske (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:: Nomination smacks of WP:ADVOCACY. Event is notable and Wikipedia is not censored to promote anti-russian sentiment. Toddst1 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 3. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep False flag or not, it happened. We're concerned about the sourcing and we have several that confirmed it happened. The "why it happened" can be answered later. We aren't here to judge. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:DENY is about vandals/sockpuppets/trolls etc, which has nothing to do with the article. Also, please follow WP:NPOV. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 15:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow close: AfD based on invalid arguments. Super Ψ Dro 15:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The site you used, WP:DENY is notorious for its false claims and sources, and that we still do not know what has happened. I suggest keeping the page up until further news is available to us.
Republic of Selmaria (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So what if it was a false flag? It should still be documented. Wikipedia has been great in recent times for documenting major events in real time, and this should be no different. Benpiano800 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad shooting[edit]

Hyderabad shooting (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:SUSTAINED. The shooting only received coverage in the days following the attack. Just because it was one of the first mass shootings doesn't make it notable. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dal Khalsa UK[edit]

Dal Khalsa UK (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 WP:POVFORK to portray Dal Khalsa (International) as a freedom struggle. It has nothing unique that warrants a new page. I suggest to delete this page and merge whatever information we can find a source for (this povfork is also virtually unsourced). >>> Extorc.talk 14:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ray Cappo but without prejudice against merging some of the material, nor against revisiting the independent notability of the subject at a later time. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better Than a Thousand[edit]

Better Than a Thousand (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)

Started a PROD saying there was no usable coverage, and to be fair to the editor who removed it, that was a mistake. Between the six other-language Wiki articles, there is a collection of some coverage. You've got this article about some album reissues, this PunkNews review, this Visions review, and an AllMusic bio. Now I know that the second and fourth of those are considered reliable, though I'm not familiar with the other two. No Echo does have multiple writers but not much else I can find that would suggest definite reliability. There's a German-language article for Visions which seems to suggest it should be reliable, but no guarantees. Now I posted that PROD a few days ago so I don't remember what I saw in my BEFORE search, but clearly it wasn't anything beyond this, and this looks like the bare minimum. I think it also meets WP:NBAND#5, but that's still a pretty weak case in my mind. Personally, I'm not convinced this is enough. Perhaps it would serve better merged into a section of Ray Cappo's page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:59, 19 April 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 14:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing. I suppose we could !merge if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per the AllMusic staff written bio and the Punknews review linked in the nominator's statement. Not opposed to a merge to Ray Cappo, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:G5‎. (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 15:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Goodary[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Reza Goodary (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)

Declined G4 as the page is not identical to the former deleted version, however the previous discussion observed that these championships do not confer notability per the relevant guidelines, and that situation does not appear to have improved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The championships don't have to confer notability, the person just needs reliable sources. I see Yahoo, Bangkok Post, Radio Times and Tehran Times, all WP:RS. Also I cannot see any rationale for a 2nd nomination, only a re-hashed 1st nomination, which is irrelevant. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MASK to make it look notable. Subject fails WP:NMMA, WP:NBOX and wasn't actually a world-champion at ADCC, he won a regional, open tournament in an intermediate class. Nswix (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Article can pass WP:GNG & WP:RS. Notability is clear by Kyokushin World Tournament Open & x2 times World Martial Arts Masterships champion. What is more than necessary to prove the Notability of a martial artist? Atingle (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom and Nswix, who pretty much say it all.Onel5969 TT me 13:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Gurpal[edit]

Sara Gurpal (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)

Popularity and fame does not equal notability. Lots of promo, but nothing that shows N. BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Unreviewed at NPP for years, probably due to volume of promo sourcing. Here is the previous deletion history.[22]. This AfD should resolve the matter one way or the other.

I really thought there would be something on this subject but nothing from IS, RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth found in article or BEFORE.

Source eval:
Comments Source
"Meet Bigg Boss Season 14 contestant Sara Gurpal" promotional 1. "Meet Bigg Boss Season 14 contestant Sara Gurpal". The Indian Express. 2020-10-03. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"All you need to know about the Punjabi kudi" promotional 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e "Bigg Boss 14 contestant Sara Gurpal: All you need to know about the Punjabi kudi". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"I can't do TV shows because I need time to do several things", promotional 3. ^ Nijher, Jaspreet. "I can't do TV shows because I need time to do several things: Sara Gurpal". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"All you need to know..." promotional 4. ^ "Bigg Boss Season 14 Contestant Sara Gurpal: All you need to know about the Punjabi actress-singer". English Jagran. 2020-10-04. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
" film features six actresses of the Punjabi film industry, namely Neeru Bajwa, Himanshi Khurana, Payal Rajput, Tanu Grewal, Surilie Gautam, and Sara Gurpal, with a sweet cameo of Yami Gautam.", name simply listed in article, fails SIGCOV 5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Shava Ni Girdhari Lal review: A snooze fest by Gippy Grewal that is adapted from Raj Kapoor's classic Mera Naam Joker". Free Press Journal. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Database record, not SIGCOV Filmfare Awards". filmfare.com. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"A Look At Lesser-Known Facts Of This Punjabi 'Kudi'", promo list 7. ^ "Early Life". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
" Sara Gurpal, who rose to fame with Bigg Boss 14, features in the song too. She is the personification of the rifle. Unfortunately, for Sara fans, there is not much for her to do." not SIGCOV 8. ^ Jump up to:a b "Me and My Girlfriend: Sidhu Moose Wala's new song is about his love affair with a rifle". The Indian Express. 2021-06-08. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"Shot in just six hours with his iPhone 11 pro, Jassie shared the new song which also features Sara Gurpal." Not SIGCOV India.com". www.india.com. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"Valentine's Special: Watch Popular Punjabi Song Music Video", promotional 10. ^ Jump up to:a b "Valentine's Special: Watch Popular Punjabi Song Music Video - 'Dil' Sung By Ninja Featuring Sara Gurpal". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"Pics From Ex-Bigg Boss 14 Contestant Sara Gurpal's Birthday Celebrations Are Lit" promo photo spread 11. ^ "Pics From Ex-Bigg Boss 14 Contestant Sara Gurpal's Birthday Celebrations Are Lit". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Movie review, Named in list 12. ^ "Dangar Doctor Jelly- Movie Review". Ghaint Punjab. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
"For the first time Kuljinder Sidhu and Sara Gurpal to share screen space together with this film." Not SIGCOV SpotboyE". www.spotboye.com. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Routine entertainment news 14. ^ "Sara Gurpal gets eliminated from Bigg Boss Season 14". The Indian Express. 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Movie review, Named in list 15. ^ "Shava Ni Girdhari Lal Movie Review : Gippy Grewal's most ambitious film exemplifies love as it should be- sweet and simple". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
Promo, name mentioned. 16. ^ Jump up to:a b "Yaar Mera Titliaan Warga: Gippy Grewal, Tanu Grewal's most-awaited film's trailer to release on..." PTC Punjabi. 2022-08-07. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
Promo, name mentioned. 17. ^ Jump up to:a b "The knight rises: 'Ghoda Dhai Kadam' promises suspenseful drama". The Indian Express. 2023-01-26. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
"SARA GURPAL STUNS WITH HER KILLER LOOKS", Promo 18. ^ Jump up to:a b "SARA GURPAL STUNS WITH HER KILLER LOOKS IN SONG 'SLOW MOTION'". PTC Punjabi. 2017-12-11. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Youtube video Music JSL Singh | Latest Punjabi Song 2015, retrieved 2023-04-02
Youtube video Dilpreet Dhillon | Meenakshi Choudhary | New Punjabi Song, retrieved 2023-04-02
Photo spread, promo 21. ^ "Sara Gurpal as 'Seerat' in 'Gurmukh' will steal your heart". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
"and will feature popular Punjabi actors Sara Gurpal, BN Sharma, Hardeep Gill, Nancy Arora, Kaimj Singh ", named in list, no SIGCOV 22. ^ "शहर के छोरे ने बनाई पंजाबी फिल्म 'हुन तां भोग ही पैंगे'". Dainik Jagran (in Hindi). Retrieved 2023-04-18.
I'm not sure what this is, but its not SIGCOV 23. ^ "Singga: ਸਿੰਗਾ ਦੀ ਫਿਲਮ 'ਮਾਈਨਿੰਗ ਰੇਤੇ ਤੇ ਕਬਜ਼ਾ' ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਹੋਰ ਕਈ ਭਾਸ਼ਾਵਾਂ 'ਚ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ ਰਿਲੀਜ਼". punjabi.abplive.com. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
Youtube video Dilpreet Dhillon | Latest Punjabi Songs 2014 | Speed Records, retrieved 2023-04-18
"The video of the song features the singer and Punjabi actress-model Sara Gurpal.", no SIGCOV SpotboyE". www.spotboye.com. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
Promo interview 26. ^ "Sara Gurpal Enacting On 'Mai Badhiya Tu Bhi Badiya' Is All About Wedding Dance". PTC Punjabi. 2018-08-11. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
"Turn up your speakers", promo 27. ^ "Turn up your speakers' volume for Gippy Grewal and Afsana Khan's 'Vailpuna'". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
Youtube video 28. ^ JAAN - Happy Raikoti ( Official Video ) - Sara Gurpal - New Punjabi Songs, retrieved 2023-04-18
Promo 29. ^ "Pratik Sehajpal: 'Jhooth' is all for those people nurturing a broken heart". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
Youtube video Michael | New Punjabi Songs 2021, retrieved 2023-04-18
"Know the full story here!" "Sharing the poster Dilpreet Dhillon has also mention beautiful Sara Gurpal in the post which means we can see her featuring in the song alongside Karan Aujla and Dilpreet Dhillon.", not SIGCOV 31. ^ "Karan Aujla, Dilpreet Dhillon and Desi Crew are coming together with something new. Know the full story here!". PTC Punjabi. 2021-02-17. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Youtube video Yaari (Official Song) Punjabi Superhit Songs | Maninder Buttar Songs, retrieved 2023-04-18
Youtube video Amrit Maan | Sara Gurpal | SanB | TejiSandhu | Sidhu Moose Wala, retrieved 2023-04-18
Youtube video T-Series Apnapunjab, retrieved 2023-04-18
BEFORE showed lots of promo, interviews, mentions, nothing with SIGCOV for IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  06:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distrocaste (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thorpe Park. Three weeks. Time to call it. Courcelles (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Fantasia[edit]

Phantom Fantasia (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 ride is the subject, it has mentions, but nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject - the ride - directly and indepth. Most of the article is OR, but no objection to a redirect to Thorpe Park#Former attractions.  // Timothy :: talk  06:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect is fine. I don't find any sourcing about the ride. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William F. Roy[edit]

William F. Roy (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 - other than a paragraph on his bicycle accident in the Canberra Times, the article is mostly sourced to primary sources and draws heavily on and williamfrancisroy.blogspot.com and IndyMediaAustralia. Neither of these are reliable and the latter appears to be associated with the sovereign citizen movement. Searches return no other coverage of the conspiracy theory included in the article. ITBF (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 03:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obaidullah Baheer[edit]

Obaidullah Baheer (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)

Appears PROMO. No coverage in RS, does not meet any of the academic or author notability criteria. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This source [33] passes IS RS, but other sources are focused on their family, not SIGCOV addressing them directly and indepth. Notability is not inherited and a single source does not show notability. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). 09:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft After some research I do think this article passes on Notability. However, in its current state the article is not up to Wiki standards and should be drafted until a better article can be produced. 2 kewl fer skool (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how he passing NPROF, and there isn't enough to pass GNG. Wouldn't be opposed to drafting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Hollebon[edit]

Reuben Hollebon (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)

Appears to be a non-notable musician. One album released by an independent label. Article was created by a WP:SPA for this label. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Several routine press articles following the launch of his album isn't sufficient to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boukari Laouali Chaibou[edit]

Boukari Laouali Chaibou (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 lot of puffery and few if any real journalistic articles. To start with the end, he has won the "Prix de la plume étendue", which according to the source[34] is the biggest literary prize in Niger, given each year to the best literary work in Niger. Strangely, his book is a non-fiction law book (hardly a literary work), and the award is completely unknown and not given to anyone else, ever, it seems. Despite the many references, seemingly independent reviews of his bestselling book and all discussing the large impact and popularity he already has, it seems that not much interest exists in him otherwise, giving me at least the impression that these interviews and reviews are paid for or otherwise unreliable and not giving any actual notability. Fram (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have just deleted the prize won since it is confusing and you feel that the source and price are not reliable and notorious. Apart from that, I maintain that the article is admissible.@CAPTAIN RAJU@Fram@Shellwood Wikipedien28 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Due to the issues with the sources identified in the nomination statement. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mayoral elections in Aurora, Colorado (yet to be created). There is consensus against keeping this as a stand-alone article (rooted in WP:NEVENT and other policies/guidelines) but no arguments presented against merging as an alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Aurora, Colorado, mayoral election[edit]

2023 Aurora, Colorado, mayoral election (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 election is of very very little importance.

The election could be & should be easily summarized as a section in Mike Coffman's article. This article was created purely because Coffman ran last year and is the incumbent this year.

Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS and it seems that this article has recieved very little news coverage from traditional media as is.

The 2023 Aurora, Colorado election has not established individual notability for this election. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. We can come back and see if it is notable after it occurs. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (although from a personal level, reluctantly because I think local electoral coverage should be wider as I argued in my AfD example here) per the consensus established at the 2023 Carmel mayoral deletion discussion. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, the election hasn't established national coverage or any kind of lasting effect from it, and it is a routine mayoral election. This election article can be re-created if it reaches that threshold, but for now, it fails to meet the mark. Nomader (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's sourcing to satisfy the GNG and CHRYSTAL makes clear, articles about certain future events are acceptable where there is sourcing (even events that are not certain, eg Human mission to Mars). As mentioned at a similar current AfD, I'd disagree that the AfD cited establishes a generalised consensus, given the difference in city sizes, Aurora being 3.5 times the population that of Carmel. Finally, I would disagree that "national" is the appropriate scale here in determining notability, certainly state and regional level coverage is acceptable. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list article for all of this city's mayoral elections (the articles for 2019 and 2011 should also be merged there). We can cover this information without having an individual article for each race; this is typical for less notable elections. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list, per above. I don't see how the coverage rises above the routine coverage in local papers that a local election would generate. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or Merge seem to be 2 options now
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of value to Aurora Wikipedians, (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources, and (3) retaining this entry would assist in addressing WP's systematic deficiencies in coverage...
... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG.
Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep This isn’t some small city, Aurora has a significant population and I do believe that it is worthy of an article and passes WP:GNG. However, I do hear Elli and Vandamonde93 argument and can agree that this might exist better in a list with all past Aurora Colorado Mayoral Elections. I support either merge or keep but certainly not delete. 2 kewl fer skool (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Light Rangers: Mending the Maniac Madness[edit]

Light Rangers: Mending the Maniac Madness (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)

Unless (entirely possible given Wikipedia's bizarre criteria) any video game is notable, this is not notable. First three refs are run of the mill listings, the fourth appears to be a site selling the trhing. The only ref of even slight substance is a review in a niche publication. Game appea5rrs to have sunk without trace; off with its head! TheLongTone (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I think that the game is worth including due to its cultural ties and the notability of some of its contributors, as outlined in the article.
I've added a source from Wired with information on the game, which should be a good-quality publication. Web search reveals that IGN apparently reviewed the title as well, but this link has since rotted. Doughbo (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Wired source is simply a trivial mention. If that's the best the article creator can come up with, it's clear they can't prove the notability of their creation. WP:ITSIMPORTANT does not hold water in a deletion debate. It's also possible the IGN listing is merely a directory listing and not a review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HASREFS, WP:HASPOT. I've initially kept the details of the game short to be expounded upon later, but the sources provided give ample description of the title's plot and the work put into its development. Most live articles are unsurprisingly niche, as the game released nearly 20 years ago and most major sources do not keep a historic database of articles.
    That said, interest in and preservation of this title is an ongoing effort. See WP:CONTIN. The Archive entry for this title was uploaded in 2022, as was this corresponding footage.[35] I understand concerns regarding notability, but subcultures are not moot. It's likely that the young age of the title's audience has delayed its documentation. Doughbo (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also interest generated in 2014 from a lost media episode of Cartridge Blowers.[36] Doughbo (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG as that is what is at issue here. A game must have multiple, significant mentions from reliable sources before being created. The easiest example of which are reviews or previews. Since Wikipedia is not a database, it is not in the business of preserving information about old, non-notable games, that should be done by the relevant organization, such as Archive.org.
    It doesn't seem like publications reviewed the game upon release, so unless you can find examples of that, it will be a difficult task to retain the article on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments and advice. How's this?[37] After hours of research, I was surprised to suddenly find that someone discussed the game in their doctoral dissertation. Doughbo (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for double replying. I really need to get less trigger happy on the submit button.
    See also this. Granted, in neither of these scholarly articles was this title the primary focus of the analysis, however, both analyses contain specific textual references to the game's plotline and features such that it seems to satisfy WP:HASREFS.
    The article has also come a long way since I first submitted it. We have now cited five publications which reviewed the game, two of which are small, independent publishers, one of which is a moderately large publication, and the other is Wired, albeit the latter mentions the title only in passing.
    I'm considering adding a section on reception and controversy based on the two scholarly sources referenced, but I think such discussion as may be derived from the two present sources might be best suited for another article. Doughbo (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't able to access the first one, but with the second one at least, the game is not discussed in its own section, but as part of a more vague grouping of titles with similar elements. It is clear that the author does not consider the game significant enough to discuss on its own. That's a clear signal for Wikipedia not to do it either.
    Numerous trivial mentions do not go full Voltron and combine to form a significant source. The significant source must exist as a standalone entity. It should be enough to "fully describe the game and its gameplay", which right now is difficult to impossible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've done my best to save it but it seems the article is DOA. Thanks for your feedback, anyhow.
    If some other user has any idea how to knit these sources into an acceptable entry, I welcome any contribution or feedback. Doughbo (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could not find enough WP:SIGCOV, which is a shame, as this is quite interesting. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outdonesia[edit]

Outdonesia (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)

Eye-wateringly trivial and no convincing evidence of any kind of notability TheLongTone (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable "joke" neologism. Fram (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A joke and nothing else. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge That single paragraph could be made mention to in Indonesia’s article. However it either needs merge or delete. 2 kewl fer skool (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An Internet joke without much notability. Maybe it deserve an article on Knowyourmemes, but definitely not on Wikipedia. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable joke that has no actually valid sources showing any kind of notability. Does not warrant a mention at Indonesia, and should just be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this WP:TRIVIAL fact does not merit inclusion in any article. I have not found any reliable mentions in Google. Carpimaps (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Indonesia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential one-of-a-kind incentive-campaign brand for Indonesia's tourism council as it may be--and that said, let's hope they actually do after this writing--this may as well warrant a delete until actual use is encountered in news articles and the like. (Good wordplay on the "in"/"out" part, though!) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable as a meme. There is an American media company with the same name, but it isn't notable either. --Mvqr (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no secondary sources to speak of. RteeeeKed💬📖 17:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two citations are just to the image and the other one is in a listicle. (KYM doesn't even have an entry.) SWinxy (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy Chess[edit]

Anarchy Chess (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 is basically about a subreddit. Entirely non-notable and no reliable sources. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Concur. "Article" is also nonsensical. --IHTS (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing any kind sourcing out there to support WP:GNG. This doesn't even seem worth a mention in the Chess article. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable chess variant. The only sources present in the article are all just from Reddit, and searching for additional sources turns up no coverage in reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obviously I'm going to say that as the nominator but I should really have speedied it for G1 (patent nonsense). Reviewing this editor's history, it's hard to AGF. I think an admin needs to have a look and decide if a block/ban is appropriate. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Stelmakh[edit]

Oleksandr Stelmakh (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)

Stelmakh played for one season in the third tier Ukrainian Second League before disappearing into the Chernihiv amateur leagues and I can't find any significant coverage that would allow a passing of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The article is currently just a mirror of the stats site footballfacts.ru

Within PFC CSKA Moscow, there is someone of the same name - Aleksandr Stelmakh. They are different people, though, as this article explains that he had his 61st birthday last year whereas the Ukrainian Stelmakh is due to turn 50 this year. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am unsure how professional he played, but I don't see anything unique standout from the article, sources available. Seemed pretty generic all round. I am all for helping Ukrainian articles, but this one seems a lost cause. Govvy (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glass-Steagall legislation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glass–Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes[edit]

Glass–Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes (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 is one in a "series" of pages that were split off of Glass-Steagall legislation in 2013; the others are Decline of the Glass–Steagall Act and Aftermath of the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act.

This seems like an unneeded content fork from the main article that was done because the main page had become an excessively long personal dissertation on the Glass-Steagall Act. There's no reason for each of these topics to be covered independent of the main article.

The normal ATD here would be to merge it back into the main article, but this page is rife cleanup-related issues that make that difficult to do. It's WP:BLOATED, appears to be a personal essay on the Glass-Steagall act (WP:NOTESSAY), the citations are a mess, probably because someone deleted sections that were extreme WP:OR and in doing so dropped the full cites (the sources for Wilmarth, Renicke, Benston, Fein, Peach and Perkins are all missing). I think WP:TNT applies. It's not clear to me that any of this is worth salvaging, and it seems it'd be far easier to start from scratch in expanding Glass-Steagall legislation if that page is missing detail. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 07:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and United States of America. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 07:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge necessary contest to the article about the act, but most of this is likely TNT'able anyway Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would draft-ifying be a reasonable AtD here if the goal were to preserve the existing content temporarily outside of main article space so it can be merged in as-appropriate (instead of having something that will later be reintroduced to article space on its own)? My only concern with a merge is that I feel like it will take substantial effort. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. What a confusing set of article names and redirects. (It took me a long time to work out why Glass–Steagall Act redirects to the Glass–Steagall legislation page instead of the 1933 Banking Act page – I understand the logic now but in any case if that is where we are directing all the traffic from searches for "Glass–Steagall Act", then the Glass–Steagall legislation page definitely needs improvement.) Merging this particular sub-article with what is essentially the Glass–Steagall Act page will hopefully trigger a further clean-up of Glass–Steagall legislation, and I agree that much of the content could be deleted anyway. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the history is captured on Talk:Glass–Steagall_Legislation/Series_name, but yeah, I agree with all of this. I'm a bit worried merging it will just make the Glass–Steagall legislation page worse though. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking previous !vote as upon further consideration, as well as the comments from Dylnuge above and from Dovid below, I think this AfD nomination would be better served as a "Proposed merge" discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against deleting: I don't think the suitability of Glass-Steagal is up for debate. IIRC, I created the related set of articles, including this one (LLL). At the time, the main article was a hot mess. Due to the complexity of the subject, there were very large sections that were difficult to understand, especially in context to one another, and that makes it difficult to grasp the overall subject due to both length and organization (points of contact between subtopics made for repetitious material). I undertook to create an outline of the overall subject, with enough meat for each section to make it useful in a standalone way, and to create "main articles" for each reduced subtopic. LLL was one of those. I haven't looked at the subject in quite some time, so it may be a mess again, but the breakout was reasonable then, and should in theory be no different now. All of the material could be part of the central G-S article, but it is more appropriate to break it out and but high down the central article. If you disagree about the disability of LLL as a standalone topic, then you would be forced to agree to move all is content back to three central article, and that decreases the treatment of city the main topic and this subtopic. Dovid (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine if this is how consensus turns out; my deletion argument is definitely about the forking being inappropriate and not the notability. But at the same time, this seems like a very good candidate to WP:TNT if there ever were one. I think you're correct that having that much content on a single article is unreadable, and I honestly don't think anyone is going to spend the time making this usable (though maybe I'm wrong). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dylnuge Please have a read of WP:ATA, especially the section on WP:SURMOUNTABLE. If you need help with editing the article, you can always canvass the relevant WikiProjects. Or, as I suggested earlier, your best bet may be to pursue this as a Proposed Merge (and notifying all the WikiProjects for input). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with WP:ATA and with the rarity that a TNT-based suggestion gets through, but I stand by the argument I laid out in my nom. I honestly don't see how having this page makes the wiki better. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big fan of WP:TNT...but to me, it cuts both ways – it can be an argument to keep and completely rewrite, or an argument to completely start over from scratch. If any existing text or sourcing information is helpful for the complete rewrite, then by all means keep it in some form, to facilitate the rewrite and not waste time and effort. At the moment, the existing text isn't doing any harm, either. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medable[edit]

Medable (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)

Plenty of sources, but nothing in the article meets WP:ORGCRIT. CNBC is a list of companies they are included in, Forbes in a contributor article, AP looks good until you click the link and see its a press release, everything else is a press release, routine announcement, or unreliable source. A WP:BEFORE found this and this which are the only two references that would come close to ORGCRIT in my opinion. There is an article in Inc. but that is not independent as the info was supplied by the founder. CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There appear to be plausible sources introduced to the discussion at the last minute. Normally I'd re-list so these could be discussed, but listing and AfD discussion for a fourth week generally isn't best practice. Therefore I'd invite the participants to look carefully and objectively at these sources, and if it is felt that enough of these sources are not independent or reliable or in-depth, then another discussion should occur. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Womb[edit]

In the Womb (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)

Does not appear to pass notability guidelines. Tagged since 2020. Nothing in a BEFORE. Another editor endorsed the PROD, however, the PROD was removed with the rationale "found sources such as abcnews", but no sources were added to prove this statement. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source is an interview with the videographers, the second is from the Womb Project Encyclopedia, neither of which is acceptable. The second in particular appears to be a non-RS. I can't find any reviews of the television show. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The ABCBNews source does not seem to be an interview with the videographers, as Oaktree claims (although I might be wrong about this). My issue with this source is more to do with the significance of its coverage - the source seems more to discuss the process of having triplets and the fact that the particular couple interviewed happened to be on this documentary only really gets a passing mention. I'm not sure whether the Embryo Project Encyclopedia is a reliable source but I can't see any obvious reason to doubt that it is; it appears to be a peer-reviewed encyclopedia with a reliable looking editorial team - but this isn't my area of expertise to again happy to be corrected. I'd say this is an edge case regarding GNG: one reliable source with significant coverage and one reliable source where coverage and independence are unclear; in this case I'm inclined towards delete. WJ94 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The second source was written by Inbar Maayan who received a grant from National Geographic (who broadcast the documentary) in 2018 ([40]). So not an entirely independent source (although not the strongest connection to the subject either). WJ94 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of programs broadcast by National Geographic Channel - seems the best compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JClemens, and I found these sources: [41][42][43][44][45] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 00:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love of My Life (Japanese TV series)[edit]

Love of My Life (Japanese TV series) (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)

Does not appear to satisfy notability requirements. Nothing found in BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2012.

PROD removed with "deprod; notable cast; not uncontroversial; take to AfD", but WP:NOTINHERITED applies to the "notable cast" comment. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Once again, I would point out that prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only! Its misuse is getting wearing. AfD is the appropriate forum for discussing articles that may well be notable (as this clearly may well be). If anything looks like it might be notable (which includes a notable cast, a long-running series, etc) then do not prod it but instead take it straight to AfD! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the last time I saw one of these was a few weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kekkon Dekinai Otoko, which was kept. WP:BEFORE directs us to "search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead." I understand that this is not practical for all editors, but there is always the option to ask someone (say at the article's talk page, or at WT:JAPAN, etc.) before taking something like this to AfD. In this case we have a nationally-televised series from the 2000s with a double-digit audience share. How did you go about checking for sources? Did you find, say, this or this or do any searches in Japanese? Dekimasuよ! 12:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Found some coverage in The Yomiuri Shimbun via Newsbank. "Flashback to an '80s favorite" (October 21, 2006) had the most significant coverage. There also were several sources that reported on when the series was being released on Hulu and reaired. [46] [47] [48]. The third one says(via Google Translate): A masterpiece drama that attracted a great deal of attention. Based on this and available sources I would say some of that attention was most likely in other reliable sources back then as well. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cássio Petry[edit]

Cássio Petry (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 individual. Only routine coverage when searching both English and Portuguese language sources. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max-Mo[edit]

Max-Mo (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:BAND and GNG more broadly. Regarding the sources provided:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lucraft[edit]

Jamie Lucraft (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 WP:BLP does not meet WP:GNG. Small mentions in directories/listings such as TV Guide or British Film Institute, but no in depth coverage. Dwaipayan (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prancer (film). ✗plicit 00:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prancer: A Christmas Tale[edit]

Prancer: A Christmas Tale (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 fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found one review from Common Sense Media. Article needs one more suitable and reliable review to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added several sources. Thanks for this notice. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Prancer (film) A lot of ITEXISTS sources, one source just talks about the actor's career (and because of his activism, criminal record) than the film, and no actual reviews or summaries of the film itself. It needs much more than this to exist as its own article. Nate • (chatter) 01:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as per above. Not enough material to justify a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (TV series)[edit]

Magic (TV series) (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)

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2019

PROD removed with "deprod; may well be notable; not an uncontroversial deletion" but nothing added to suggest that it is notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NTVNATL would suggest this is likely notable, so deprodding was reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Once again, I would point out that prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only! Its misuse is getting wearing. AfD is the appropriate forum for discussing articles that may well be notable (as this clearly may well be). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. No source in article which is a translation of an article, which is also unsourced. BEFORE showed listings and promo, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Let me know if something is found.  // Timothy :: talk  00:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Garuda3 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Delucchi[edit]

Alfred Delucchi (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)

Longtime stub for a state trial court judge who presided over some notable trials, yes, but does not inherit notability from doing his job any more than does the bailiff for those cases. BD2412 T 01:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep after his death in 2008 several media outlets in the area published obituaries of him, including [49] [50] [51]. Passes the general notability guideline. Hut 8.5 17:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia:JUDGE would seem he's eligible on that alone. However, presiding over the trials of Tyrone Robinson who murdered Black Panther Party co-founder Huey P. Newton, as well as presiding over the trial of Scott Peterson for the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child - these trials were big deals in coverage when they happened. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Maile66: Wikipedia:JUDGE has two tests, one being for "judges who have held international, national, or state/province–wide office", which this judge by definition has not, and the other for having "received significant press coverage". What significant press coverage has this subject received that is not merely mentions of their functionary role with respect to their work? BD2412 T 01:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm not going to dig up the sourcing for you. But, believe me, there was much radio and TV coverage over both of these murders and subsequent trials. Huey P. Newton death and trial media coverage because of his cultural standing and significance at the time. Scott Peterson because killing his unborn son and wife was was a big media coverage situation. In trials like this, judges get more than a passing mention. You have the right to disagree with me, but I'm not changing my Keep above. — Maile (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Combined with the obituaries (which on their own are insufficient), here are some others: [52], [53], [54]. With these we have enough for GNG and a short article. We also have some smaller mentions online (e.g., [55]) which help fill out the picture. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Assistant[edit]

Giving Assistant (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)

Subject does not meet NCORP/NPRODUCT. Only source that initially looks good from CNN is actually a paid advertisement and marked "Sponsored by Giving Assistant. When you make a purchase, CNN receives commission. CNN news staff is not involved". Otherwise, total lack of significant coverage. Editor only has 14 edits, whiffs of COI (not a ground for deletion per se, but probably why there is nothing out there to build this into a proper article and substantiate notability) MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, PROMO. There's nothing to be found that we can use. CNN is basically a sponsored post. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on a consumer Reward website. Giving Assistant closed in 2021 but coverage of concerns about the closure (e.g. [56]) does not confer notability; Upright Data later acquired and revived it but there is no article here about that firm, so no WP:ATD target. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shuri-ryū. Courcelles (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bowles (karate)[edit]

Robert Bowles (karate) (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)

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Unable to find any nontrivial independent coverage, or any substantiation of various claims in the Competitions section. — Moriwen (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. — Moriwen (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to Shuri-ryū I'm finding a lot of sources that don't quite establish notability. He has a lot of passing(ish?) coverage in this maybe-reliable magazine,[1] and a lot of local coverage, and that's it. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=Q9YDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA12

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 00:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Knuth[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bob Knuth (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:BIO; sources are lacking. The Jeff Award is local to Chicago, where he is based. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio? There seems to be language in the article (such as "Besides working as a freelance scenic and graphic designer") that was copied from other things on the internet, such as this and this -- or are those WP mirrors?. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Prakash[edit]

Vinay Prakash (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 BLP of a businessman is poorly sourced. It does not has enough citations to show GNG. I can't find any other sources online. Thesixserra (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Thesixserra (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like a LinkedIn bio. Nothing notable, the award isn't. I can't find extensive sourcing beyond confirmation where the individual works. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search comes up with namesakes despite him being an executive of a notable company. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like a resume and pure advertising WP:COI is there, delete it Hukumat Namanzoor (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being connected with big company will not make him notable, automatically. There is no indepth coverage about him. AdesamSA (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SpiderWorks Technologies[edit]

SpiderWorks Technologies (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)

Typical promo puff piece with possible concerns of UPE/COI. Does not meet NCORP requirements . Thesixserra (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:SpiderWorks is a notable digital marketing company in Kerala, India. There isn't any promo content including in the article. Only factual information including the founder, locations, and their key services are included in this content. Krishnenduhareesh (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Sock (Non-administrator comment) – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 14:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1 gnews hit says it all. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A corporate-website-type article previously declined at AfC, setting out a small company's wares and office addresses, supported by routine listings and a brief summary of a conference speech, none of which is sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches do not find the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The three listed sources don't really seem reliable. The first one mentioned the subject to be one of the 18 recipients of an award given by TechBehemoths. While I'm not familiar with TechBehemoths, the amount of recipients and their scarce reviews (most companies on the site shown to have around 5 reviews, 2 have even less) don't strike confidence in me; The second source only mentioned the subject in-passing as part of someone's former experience; and the third company seems to be a blog and promotional in nature. No other significant coverage can be found. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Sources found; nomination withdrawn.‎ Props to Mccapra. jp×g 05:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Muhammad Saeed Sayf[edit]

Muhammad Saeed Sayf (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)

"Muhammad Saeef Sayd is a Yemeni writer. His fiction piece "Waiting" has been translated into English and appeared in a 1988 anthology of modern Arabian literature." The single source, which is a passing mention in a larger work, is all I have to go by: no web searches turn up anything else. This, which is that source, only says that he wrote a single story which was once included in an anthology; I do not see a GNG pass here. jp×g 02:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: How in tarnation did you find those? I will withdraw now, but please tell me what you used to get a hold of those -- I want to use it as well! jp×g 05:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Gourmet Express[edit]

Chinese Gourmet Express (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 significant coverage to meet GNG. Gets some coverage for public health violations but that's not enough to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 00:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aluk Todolo[edit]

Aluk Todolo (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)

Contested draftification, but can't find any in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Indonesia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The topic per se is notable. It is covered in many scholarly works about the Toraja people. But in its current shape with poor sourcing (I have reasons to believe that the article creator has not even fully read them), it simply does not fulfil the purpose of presenting information of any value about the topic to our readers. –Austronesier (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did draftify, for just the reasons you stated above, but it was returned to draftspace. Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did the right thing then and have done the right thing now by taking the stony road of AfD. The page creator disruptively has restored the article in main space, and FWIW, this is not the first time they resort to edit warring in the page creation process. –Austronesier (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, restoring a draft to mainspace is not disruptive. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic easily meets GNG. For example, it is discussed at length in these two books, [57], [58], and gets many more hits on GBooks and GScholar. The religion is also known as alukta, which also gets plenty of hits. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Sojourner in the earth's book-reference is convincing, and there are indeed many more in Google-books (broader Google-searches are hampered by the rock-band). (1) If there are factual problems with the article, there should at least be some attempt at discussion on the (currently non-existent) talk-page; (2) No one has done anything wrong here; the author was entitled to contest draftification, and Onel5969 was equally entitled to seek debate at AfD, and correctly did so. Let's judge the topic on its merits. Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Crane Wives[edit]

The Crane Wives (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)

Does not meet WP:BAND, unsigned and appears to have coverage from only local sources. Also appears to have been created by a COI editor and subject to periodic COI editing from others. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a close call because they have absolutely been noticed locally, with multiple awards from their hometown radio station and occasional local news pieces: [59], [60]. Unfortunately, the radio station awards are not "major" per the requirements at WP:NBAND, and softball interviews and local gig announcements do not qualify for WP:SIGCOV. Otherwise they are only visible in the usual social media and self-upload services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the NPR source is solid, the rest are ok-ish, but just give us notability Oaktree b (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the newspaper coverage, coverage from NPR and a show on PBS so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep amount of reliable local coverage plus NPR affiliate plus PBS show plus a positive blurb related to a Tiny Desk contest on NPR [63]. Skynxnex (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following the source evaluation and participants' inability to find additional sourcing. ✗plicit 00:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Phuler Modhu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Neem Phuler Modhu (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)

Renominating because it still seems that WP:GNG is not met - the television series lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Source eval:
Comments Source
"'Neem Phuler Madhu' will tell the story of Parna's life changes" promotional 1. "Neem Phuler Modhu: বিয়ের প্রথম একটা বছর, পর্ণার জীবনের পালাবদলের গল্প বলবে 'নিম ফুলের মধু'".
Launch promo 2. ^ "Pallavi Sharma-Rubel Das starrer 'Nim Phuler Modhu' to launch soon".
"Pallavi-Rubel is returning to the series" promo, routine news 3. ^ "বিয়ের প্রথম বছর 'নিম ফুলের মধু', ধারাবাহিকে ফিরছেন পল্লবী-রুবেল".
Promo photo spread, intervew 4. ^ "Nim Phuler Madhu: মালাবদলে শুভ সূচনা, 'মিঠাই'-এর জায়গায় আসছে রুবেল-পল্লবীর নতুন ধারাবাহিক".
Routine promo news about a new star 5. ^ "Neem Fuler Madhu: Actress from Pilu Soumi Chakraborty joins the new team".
Routine promo news about a new star 6. ^ "Actress Nabanita Malakar bags a key role in a new show".
The source mentioned above is included, it is promo for the start of the series. BEFORE showed nothing taht meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  09:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - So, I don't speak Bengali, and this title anglicizes in a few different ways, but I'm having a hard time finding much that would give the GNG a clean pass. I did find this article but truthfully I would expect to see more for a show with 150+ episodes. Of course, the language barrier may be playing a role. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on Timothy's source evaluation. Not opposed to recreation in a year or two if it gets better press coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 trend of the discussion was toward Keep, with participants judging that the cumulative coverage is enough for notability. RL0919 (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ömer Aysan Barış[edit]

Ömer Aysan Barış (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, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Oppose Draft, its just a back door to deletion and there is no excuse to keep poorly sourced BLPs. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  06:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found [64] ("he has distinguished himself with his quickness and shooting abilities. Although he wore Bursaspor and Ankaraspor jerseys, he made the real leap in Trabzonspor. He suffered from playing in different positions in the past, but now he has established his football identity as a typical right-back"), [65], [66] (which gives a lot of background info on him), [67] ("WHO IS OMER AYSAN?... Despite working on the right of the defense, he... has made a name for himself with the support he gives to the attack and the thrusts he makes"), [68] ("Bursaspor football player Ömer Aysan Barış draws attention with his outstanding performance in the last three games he played after a long period of injury... has a big share in Bursaspor team getting 9 points in three games"), [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], and consistent coverage from Hurriyet, Turkey's most widely circulated newspaper (not to mention most of the sports websites and other newspapers), among any any more Turkish sources (including probable offline ones). He is a clear topic of interest in Turkish football with extensive career including 100+ appearances in the elite level of football (Turkish Super Lig is considered a top 10 league in Europe. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Regarding most of the consistent pro-deletion users, I dont understand why they spend all their effort deleting other peoples honest hard work instead of improving them, especially most pro-deletion users I have encountered who have a double standard where they either support Wikipedia:SNG where the article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG or have sometimes created articles of people with less coverage than this one. (I support article creation, but many pro-deletion users double standard is very frustrating). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source eval:
  • Interview primary, doesn't show N :: [74]
  • Q & A Interview, doesn't show N :: [75]
  • Promo about a wedding. Subject is primary source for article :: [76]
  • ROUTINE sports promo piece :: [77]
  • Promo, subject is source for article :: [78]
  • Puff piece about subject and girlfriend :: [79]
  • Interview, ROUTINE sports promo piece :: [80]
  • ROUTINE puff piece after a game :: [81]
All ROUTINE news stories, which use the subject as either a partial or full source for information. Nothing that show IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  20:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the sources do have secondary coverage (from source 1: "he has distinguished himself with his quickness and shooting abilities. Although he wore Bursaspor and Ankaraspor jerseys, he made the real leap in Trabzonspor. He suffered from playing in different positions in the past, but now he has established his football identity as a typical right-back", source 3 gives a lot of background info on him (not only is the source about his wedding, the mayor honored him, also the fact that his wedding is covered by national news websites shows his notability in Turkey), from source 4: "WHO IS OMER AYSAN?... Despite working on the right of the defense, he... has made a name for himself with the support he gives to the attack and the thrusts he makes", from source 4: "Bursaspor football player Ömer Aysan Barış draws attention with his outstanding performance in the last three games he played after a long period of injury" etc etc). Secondly, For some backwards reason the focus is always on deletion rather than improvement, (but, I hear you say, isn't the whole point of editing Wikipedia to delete others articles?) but I spent hours doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". As one user stated in another deletion discussion, "expansion... renders the above WP:WIKILAWYERING a moot point". Thirdly, every deletion editor's entire arguments is basically repeating "everything is routine" (clearly not true) or "deletion because the "law" said so" (again, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering) without thinking about why the "law" exists in the first place... the reason the secondary source "law" exists is objectivity, which this article does anyways... if a fair amount of independent, reliable sources, primary or secondary, can produce an objective factual decent sized article about a clear topic of interest (he received consistent coverage from Hurriyet, Turkey's most widely circulated newspaper), there's no logical reason it should be deleted at all (Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question). Lastly, I find it incredibly ironic that most pro-deletion users I have encountered (who tend to regard the page of e.g. some youth soccer coach with no sources online who created his own Wikipedia page the same as a the page of a seasoned elite-level footballer with many sources created by a Wikipedia editor who thought them notable enough to warrant a page) have a double standard where they either support Wikipedia:SNG where the article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG or have created articles of people with less coverage than this one. In your case, your most recent article is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online... (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes GNG, significant coverage that clearly shohws noteability.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 11:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sources identified above generally do not count towards satisfying WP:GNG. The TFF is not independent of Aysan, and many of the other articles are Q&A interviews or brief match reports (like the beinsports piece). The haber3 article is gossip. I disagree with Timothy about the Kocaeli Gazetsi wedding announcement; it's clear that Aysan wasn't the source of the article, and it's notable that a MP, Fatma Kaplan Hürriyet, gave him an honor at the event. Also, the Kayseri Haber article is relatively good, although a bit short. I'll see if I can find something else. Jogurney (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - I've looked as carefully as I can, and can't find enough in-depth coverage in WP:SIRS to meet the GNG. It appears that Aysan was fairly successful early in his career (particularly while at Bursaspor) so maybe there is better coverage from the early 2000's that is archived somewhere. However, the later portion of his career wasn't very noteworthy (some misfortunate with Ankaraspor being dismissed from the league during the 2009–10 season, and injuries following his move to Trabzonspor) which shows as the coverage is routine (injury announcements, match reports, transfer announcements). I think the 2 sources I mentioned above are close to SIGCOV, but not nearly enough. Jogurney (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jogurney:, my rationale here should push him from a weak delete to at least a weak keep. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jogurney:, Per Isaacl, the secondary coverage in his TFF interview is clearly factual. Also, sure, the Turkish Football Federation interviewed an assistant referee (probably for variety), but I would be very surprised if most of the players they interviewed are not notable to some extent. Looking at a page of player interviews, I found essentially all of the interviews were with significant players who made over 100+ games in Süper Lig (and the one that didn't made 50+ appearances). He is clearly notable to warrant this secondary and primary coverage from the TFF, not to mention this in-depth newspaper interview going through his entire life up to then. On top of that, with common sense, all the other points I make in the rationale should easily push him from a weak delete to at least a weak keep. If not, there are more points I will make. Das osmnezz (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you posting your detailed rationale on your User page rather than here. If I understood correctly, you are making four arguments: (1) SIGCOV is met because there are 2 independent, reliable sources that contain coverage than can be combined with plenty of independent, reliable sources that contain superficial coverage in order to yield in-depth coverage; (2) while the TFF interview is not independent coverage it is a sign of notability; (3) loads of routine/trivial coverage in Turkey's newspaper of record is a sign of notability; and (4) common sense dictates that even when the GNG is not met, a footballer who has played a lot at an elite level is de facto notable.
I agree that I've !voted to keep articles based on rationale #1 before (they are difficult decisions). In the AfD you linked, I believed the independent, reliable sources were significantly better than the ones available here (but with hindsight I probably should have !voted weak keep in that one).
I disagree with rationale #2, and there is a strong consensus at WT:NSPORTS that the Federation's interview is not a sign of notability.
I strongly disagree with rational #3 because a footballer can easily appear in 30 matches each season, and the largest newspapers in that nation will always produce trivial coverage like match reports on all of them. So it's not the least bit surprising that a search of Hürriyet yields 100s of trivial hits.
Rational #4 is something I reserve for unusual situations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Guadalupe Rubio. That case involved a pre-internet era footballer who is one of the best ever to play for a Liga MX club during its rise, and I knew the local newspaper's internet archive was malfunctioning (making access extremely difficult). I stand behind that !vote even today.
So, that's a long way of saying I'm comfortable with my !vote here. Jogurney (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jogurney:, my Second rationale here should push him from a weak delete to at least a weak keep. Also, I disagree that a footballer can "easily appear in 30 matches each season", let alone make 170+ games in an elite level, a top 15 league in Europe. On top of that, the consistent coverage from Hurriyet, Turkey's most widely circulated newspaper are definitely not match reports, and, using common sense, a countries leading newspaper would definitely not have that much consistent coverage, however "routine", of any average footballer. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I ran that Hürriyet search for Hakan Şükür; over 10,000 results. Emre Belözoğlu; over 8,000 results. So, yes, it is easy to get loads of routine coverage in that newspaper if you are one of the highest-profile Turkish footballers, and apparently you can get a lot (over 800 hits) if you are a much lesser figure like Aysan. Jogurney (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jogurney:, @Jogurney:, Regarding the TFF interview, looking at a page of TFF player interviews, I found essentially all of the interviews were with significant players who made over 100+ games in Süper Lig (and the one that didn't made 50+ appearances). He is clearly notable to warrant this secondary and primary coverage from the TFF, not to mention this in-depth newspaper interview going through his entire life up to then. Also, the Hurriyet point above doesn't make much sense, since Hakan Şükür and Emre Belözoğlu are some of the most well known Turkish players, and for example this guy and this guy both played around the same amount of Super Lig games as Aysan, played alongside Aysan, played in the same time period, (one of them still plays, which emphasizes my point more), but have way less Hurriyet articles about them and hits compared to Aysan, so using common sense Turkeys leading newspaper clearly thought Aysan was notable enough to covering cosnsiently, routine or not. On top of that, he logically definitely has offline coverage, since there are no articles online about him from the early 2000s period when he won the Turkish Cup and received national team attention, arguably his most successful period. I also disagree that a footballer can "easily appear in 30 matches each season", let alone make 170+ games in an elite level, a top 15 league in Europe. I also disagree that the other independent reliable sources besides the "good" ones you mentioned aren't adequate (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), since they clearly emphasize his notability (e.g. "Despite working on the right of the defense, he is a name that has made a name for himself with the support he gives to the attack and the thrusts he makes" etc). Even besides all that above, my Second rationale here should push him from a weak delete to at least a weak keep. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with Das osmnezz with regards to the references. Part of the problem with the new lack of notability guidelines is that you get major players for top teams in big leagues, who don't get a lot of English-language press - and it's hard to find good Turkish archives for this long ago (we are finding stuff, but they aren't exactly the big papers that aren't archived freely online) - though that observation doesn't help us here. In addition to what was in the article, he was quoted internationally after a famous 2011 match ... which is the kind of thing that could cause people to want to know who he is; I've added to the article, including references to The Seattle Times, The Guardian, and a book. There's an indication in the book that there's a Telegraph article as well, but I don't have access. These 3 (or 4) references don't advance a GNG claim in themselves; but we have a heck of lot of reporting still available online for this prolific player. Nfitz (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sources presented by Das osmnezz. I disagree with TimothyBlue's source analysis; there is enough secondary, non-interview, content in the sources that allow the subject to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, the latter saying if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 18:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sourcing provided by Das osmnezz is sufficient to pass GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources currently in the article pass GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly pasess GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Striking double vote SWinxy (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pasess notability --Shotgun pete (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hurriyet did run this story about him, with a small amount of independent analysis. Yes, this is largely derived from Haber61 but it's a reliable and independent source. Kayseri News has some good coverage towards the end, albeit brief. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked through the sources and they were mostly surface-level, not in depth as required by both WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. (Also the Internet Archive citation is somehow wrong; it references p262 when there are only 260 pages.) SWinxy (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Frank Anchors response above ("there is enough secondary, non-interview, content in the sources that allow the subject to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, the latter saying if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability") and also see my my first rationale and second rationale. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andy Nelson (American football). ✗plicit 00:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Nelson's Southern Pit Barbecue[edit]

Andy Nelson's Southern Pit Barbecue (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 significant coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wannawat Ampunsuwan[edit]

Wannawat Ampunsuwan (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, BASIC and NBAD. No significant coverage found online. Timothytyy (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep highest rank 30 in the world, medalist at the Southeast Asian Games and Summer Universiade. These should be enough to keep article. zoglophie 15:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zoglophie Notability is based on coverage, not by achievements. It does not even pass NBAD. No coverage at all online. An article which fails GNG, SNG and SIGCOV at the same time should definitely be deleted. Timothytyy (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, achievements alone can also be considered. As I said before, someone who was ranked top 30 in the world with plenty of regional medals can't be deleted. zoglophie 04:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by can't be deleted? Notability is based on coverage, not achievements. Please read the notability guidelines and deletion policy if you still don't understand. Timothytyy (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stvbastian You can check the sources, none of them provide secondary significant coverage about the subject himself, so it still fails GNG. Unless you can find SIGCOV, I don't see any point of keeping this article. Timothytyy (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zoglophie. trivial mention in some secondary sources, primary sources, can also be used to "support" notability. We can extract the content from multiple secondary sources and primary sources for establishing notability. Stvbastian (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can NOT support notability. According to WP:SIGCOV, only sources that provides coverage about the subject directly and in detail can contribute to notability. Quote from SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but it cannot be a trivial mention. Explaining this to you again after already explaining it to you in another AFD. You don't seem to understand GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use primary sources to beef up an article, but you need reliable, neutral sources to create the article. You can hang the primary sources on the main article, but you have to get the base article built first. Oaktree b (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Florentyna Per which relavant guidelines? Please give adequate explanation in all AFD votes, or else closing admins will not consider your votes. Timothytyy (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus is to Keep this article but no participants have supplied sources providing SIGCOV in response to the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for any sort of sourcing in RS that can be used to meet GNG, there are none given above. I can't find any either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject does not meet the notability criteria set out in the general notability guideline. Claims of achievements are not helpful to this debate as even if true, do not satisfy the criteria for badminton players set out at WP:NBAD. Player needs to have had a podium finish at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix (until 2017) or the BWF World Tour or Super 100 level (from 2018 onwards) and I see no evidence of this. Even if true, it's only an indicator that significant coverage is likely to exist. Without that coverage, I can't support keeping this article. The !votes for keep in my opinion are "drive-by" - quick "keep this" without actually addressing the concerns raised by the nominator or delete !voters. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the nominator has confirmed that the relevant guidelines are WP:NBAD, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. There is also WP:SPORTBASIC. This article does not meet any of these 4 guidelines, therefore, there is no reason to keep this article. Keep arguments above are not guideline based. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In addition to the majority favoring deletion, the repeated appeals to WP:LISTPURP are a weak argument for keeping. Presumably this is an "informational" list, but there does not appear to be any attempt to establish the notability of the information. Navigational lists (including WP:Outlines and WP:Indexes) are often treated more like navboxes or categories, where notability is not a key criterion. But since that doesn't apply here, the lack of arguments supporting notability is close to fatal, and combined with being a minority position in the discussion it definitely is fatal. RL0919 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri (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 dubious close the first time around, the precedent from many discussion of these lists taken from the now shut-down Emporis is that lists from smaller cities with not terribly tall buildings have generally been deleted. When a parking garage is the fifth entry on the list, it is not a good sign. Almost all the buildings listed are 9 or 10 stories, and only one has more stories than that; the tallest is only 180 feet tall. As per the original nomination, nothing here is notable for its height, and there's no discussion of the height of the buildings in the city beyond the now-departed Emporis page, where there articles on even quite small cities. Columbia, while pretty big for Missouri, is still a small place, and its buildings are unremarkable for their height. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I found 90-some "List of tallest buildings in" deletion discussions. Looking through them I found only a few definite keeps, including one for Karachi which was based on sourcing, not notability. Second discussions that I looked at were all deletes. There were a few redirects to the parent city article, but the vast majority had deletion as an outcome. Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Missouri. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing remotely notable about any of this, least of all the height of the buildings. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the height of the buildings in Columbia. And since the article is about the tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri, that is what is relevant, not whether anyone one finds the height remarkable. Djflem (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I gathered that this is about the height of buildings in Columbia, the issue is one of notability. Why, exactly, is this notable to the wider world? They seem fairly par for the course in any city. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A list for just everything in the city that has a Wikipedia article I think would work better. Category:Buildings and structures in Columbia, Missouri. There is List of tallest buildings in Missouri but none of these buildings are tall enough to be merged onto that list. Dream Focus 12:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there are several blue linked buildings, which conforms to reasons to keep lists such as this. To eliminate those without would make the article List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri which have Wikipedia articles, which would be rather strange, wouldn't it? Djflem (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Djflem see WP:LIST. Unless you can argue a discrete/complete set, it becomes arbitrary...at least Wikipedia articles indicate some sort of notability. But even so...this seems like an arbitrary combination of notable lists imo ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfies Wikipedia:LISTPURP. Schierbecker (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is likely to grow per above WP:LISTPURP, five of the entries are since 2010, a different five articles are notable in their own right. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But if an article is verifiable, notable, well-sourced, and useful to boot. Seems a real waste to delete it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the list was copied from Emporis some three years later, so the list is not likely to grow unless someone is watching the Columbia real estate market closely. And even then, it's only likely to change if someone builds a taller building than what's already there. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it satisfies listpurp doesn't mean it is needed...
if I make a "list of middle schools in missouri". yes it does fit listpurp, but it's not needed due to its obscurity.
Columbia has a population of 128,879. [82] but 31,318 of those are Mizzou students [83]. So I subtracted those since they aren't permanent residents and got 97,651.
Despite being bigger, Springfield doesn't have a list.
with it being a college town, most of the tallest buildings are in the college and not the actual town LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not sure what purpose the people quoting LISTPURP feel it is fulfilling. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's useful snapshot of the history of architecture in Columbia, and well-referenced. I think it could benefit from a column for architectural styles. Prburley (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:LISTPURP is a manual of style guideline not a notability guideline. The relevant guideline is WP:NLIST which I believe this fails. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." LibStar (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insofar as this information is worth listing at all, it surely belongs in the section entitled Cityscape in the article on Columbia, Missouri. There is nothing to justify a stand-alone article. Athel cb (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a merge suggestion? Djflem (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it provides overview and insight into history, architecture, urban planning development, cityscape of Columbia that encyclopedia and useful it & since it satifies Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:LISTN (which is specific about there not being a consensus about notability of lists of this type). Djflem (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "that encyclopedia and useful it" does not make sense. It is not correct English. LibStar (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "that is that encyclopedic and useful" Djflem (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as a Missouri resident myself. The only way Columbia is notable is because it has Mizzou. In my opinion, the only major cities in missouri that deserve these "list of tallest buildings" pages is St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, and arguably Cape Guireardo, St. Charles, Jefferson City, and Hannibal
Also the fact that the 5th tallest building is a
parking garage says a lot about how
meaningless this page is LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_3&oldid=1154332442"