Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 02 November 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Bernardi[edit]

Pedro Bernardi (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 subject fails WP:GNG for the lack of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While Bernardi did play (just) one match on the main tour level, WP:NSPORT/FAQ states that "the topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline." I haven't been able to find much in my searches beyond promotional press releases, passing mentions/shallow coverage, match recaps or databases. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christobel Katona[edit]

Christobel Katona (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 subject has earned at least two caps for the Zimbabwe women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. This was what I did find. JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shamiso Mutasa[edit]

Shamiso Mutasa (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 subject has earned at least two caps for the Zimbabwe women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage from reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luke (The Walking Dead)[edit]

Luke (The Walking Dead) (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)

Only sources for notability in the article is casting news. All information I can find are talking about the episode he returns in or speculating on his fate, either way note enough to establish notability. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Big O#Setting. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megadeus[edit]

Megadeus (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)

Fixing AfD nomination based on IP request. No comment on the merits. Statement from IP - "Does not seem to be WP:SIGCOV, though I would settle for a merge " and "Found nothing substantial from my WP:BEFORE." AfD was started by IP but not completed in order to create discussion page. CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge/Redirect targets listed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

André Lacroix (cyclist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV, sources exist [1] but not enough. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is an AFD where more participation would have led to a more decisive closure. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhirubhai Ambani Green Energy Giga Complex[edit]

Dhirubhai Ambani Green Energy Giga Complex (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)

Almost every source used here is a press release, zero indepth third-party coverage. Interviews with the chairman and "hey we opened this factory here" do not make a notable article. Sohom (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The Dhirubhai Ambani Green Energy Giga Complex is a significant development in the renewable energy sector in India and deserves a place on Wikipedia. There is substantial coverage from reliable sources, as per preliminary WP:BEFORE, by the following Google search [2] and scholarly articles [3]. While the primary sources for this topic may include press releases and official statements, it is not unusual for emerging and mega projects. It's essential to recognize that press releases and statements from relevant authorities, such as the chairman, are often the initial and most reliable sources of information for projects of this nature, especially in the early stages of development. There are several other upcoming mega projects, such as the Gigafactory Mexico and Additionally, there have been multiple updates on this project [4][5], and Reliance has made significant acquisitions in advanced energy storage batteries, electrolysers, and fuel cells. They have also secured deals worth Rs 9,300 crore with firms like Ambri, REC Solar, Sterling & Wilson Solar, NexWafe, and Stiesdal A/S in the past four months [6], all of which provide valuable information that chould be included in the article. This topic should be considered worthy of inclusion and the keep status should be maintained. Additionally, the nominator should be encouraged to conduct WP:BEFORE in the future to ensure the adequacy of sources before initiating deletion nominations. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 06:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DSP2092 - I would like to point out that I resent your blatant accusation that I did not conduct a BEFORE and I would urge you to retract that accusation immediately.
    Coming to sourcing, as far as I can see, this Google scholar search contains papers that only contain a fleeting mention of the "giga factory" failing the in-depth, in this TOI article there is only two sentences devoted in the entire article to this complex (fails in depth), the DNA article has one line dedicated to the complex in question (fails in depth) and the IndiaToday article is written in a hagiographical style praising the founder of the company (with a grand total of two lines dedicated to the complex), and I have serious doubts on the validity of the claims (fails in depth and reliable). Overall, the sources that you have given fail to show that there has been in-depth coverage by reliable sources. If you can show me 3 reliable sources that discuss specifically this complex in detail (i.e. dedicate the whole article to covering the complex only) I will be happy to withdraw my nomination.
    In addition to that, pointing to other articles saying that if they exists, this should as well, is considered an argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions. Regards, Sohom (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reamsa[edit]

Reamsa (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 company; I see plenty of these toys for sale online but haven't been able to turn up any reliable sources ~TPW 14:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An unreferenced article describing a former company which produced plastic figurines (religious, Guardia Civil, etc.) during the Francoist era. The source I linked above could provide basic reference support, but is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate notability, nor is there an obvious WP:ATD redirect target. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with AllyD, there is insufficient sourcing that meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability of this company. HighKing++ 14:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ansari Financial Services[edit]

Al Ansari Financial Services (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)

Based on routine coverage. Advertisement. LKBT (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Al Ansari Financial Services is a 57 year old publicly listed company on the Dubai Stock Exchange[7], with licenses from UAE and Kuwait, Central Banks (not easy to obtain btw). For peer comparison,[8] Al Ansari is also historically relevant as part of UAE/Emirati founded financial companies landscape, no different than the UAE companies[9] listed UAE Exchange or banking articles. The Ansari article is also more relevant compared to the private company Century Financial published articles on Wikipedia which is a private investment company selling products. Al Ansari article has been written/described in a plain non-promotional tone.
User:MMuzammils [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 07:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please use your own words with letters typed or transcribed individually in your rationale; this reads as blatantly machine-generated. Nate • (chatter) 20:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The '''Keep''' rational is simple, the company has a decades long track record, like any other regional bank, it's regulated by the Central Banks of UAE and Kuwait, and it's also publicly listed on the Dubai Stock Exchange. It's not some new commercial entity that needs Wikipedia for advertising purposes. This company is also notable as an Emarati founded company, because it was part of the early financial landscape of UAE, and helped UAE become a financial hub. Unlike companies of Western Branches or franchises. It's the home grown local equivalent of UAE's Western Union. I have grown up in the UAE and am witness to it's local impact, unlike the people who have nominated it for deletion. If we are to start nominating "government regulated listed" companies for deletion, then by the same measure/logic many other UAE based banks and Western companies on Wikipedia will require a re-write or deletion. I feel this deletion is somewhat targeted because Ansari is a non-Western Emarati company not familiar globally.
User:MMuzammils [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 17:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note, this is one of the oldest financial companies predating the official banking era in UAE. User:MMuzammils [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 18:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PROMO website copy. Nate • (chatter) 20:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The shares going up 16.5% is routine business news. None of the rest is helpful for GNG. The company could be notable with a long history, but we have no sources for this. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Added to 'History' section, Al Ansari donated a total of US$20 million, once in 2012, then again in 2021 with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, external references were added, fyi, the official website has no press linking to these events. User:MMuzammils [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 22:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can only cast one "vote" in each AFD so I'm striking this duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I would expect plenty of good sources for a company that has been listed for 57 years (from analysts covering this sector, competitive analysis, analysis by financial experts?) and perhaps there are good sources in languages other than English but right now, I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighKing
    Do the $20 Million dollars in donations to the region add no credibility?
    The company went public in this year, this region doesn't have much coverage of private companies.
    Yes, coverage in Arabic is available.
    Ansari have received a number of awards from government and industry bodies, they were not mentioned in the article, to avoid portraying any promotional feel.
    https://alansariexchange.com/awards-accolades/ (Third party references are available)
    Government awards are in bold. Rest are industry specific awards.
    • MEA Finance’s Best Remittance and Foreign Exchange Service Provider (2023)
    • MEA Finance’s Best User Experience in Payments in the UAE (2023)
    • Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award (SKEA) – 20th Cycle: Gold Category (2023)
    • Fastest-growing Multi-Currency Travel Prepaid Card programme in the UAE (2022)
    • Consumer-Friendly Company (2022)
    • MEA Finance’s Best Remittance and Foreign Exchange Company in the UAE (2022)
    • Seamless Awards for Improved Omni-channel Experience of the Year (2022)
    • Dubai Appreciation Award for Community Service in the Corporate Category (2022)
    • Smart Industry Award (2022)
    • Dubai Quality Appreciation Award (2022)
    • Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Customer Excellence Award (2021)
    • Rated as the top Fintech App in the UAE, GCC and the second in the Middle East Region, on the Forbes Middle East list of the Top 15 Fintech Apps (2021)
    • Al Ansari Exchange tops Forbes’ list of the most prominent transfer and exchange companies in the Middle East (2020)
    • The Dubai Chamber Advanced CSR Label (2020)
    • Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Business Innovation Award (2019)
    • Sharjah Excellence Award (2019)
    • Best Money Exchange at the Asiavision Excellence Awards (2018)
    • Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Business Excellence Award (2017)
    • ShjSEEN Award for Top 10 Businesses – First Place in the Financial Services category (2017)
    • Dubai Human Development Appreciation Award (2017)
    • Golden Shield Award by the Arab Organization for Social Responsibility (2016)
    • The Filipino Times Awards – Preferred Remittance Centre of the Year (2015 & 2016)
    • Al Ansari Exchange is among Forbes Middle East’s List of Top Companies in the Arab World (2015)
    • Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award – Silver Category (2014)
    • Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award – Quality Appreciation Certificate (2011 and 2004)
    • Winner of Superbrands award for 14 consecutive years (2005-2018)
    • Best Remittance Services Provider in the Middle East and North Africa by IAMTN (2010)
    • ISO 9001:2015
    • UAE Web Awards in the eCommerce Category (2006)
    • Dubai Quality Award in the Financial Sector (2004)
    User:MMuzammils [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some brief replies to MMuzammils. We are simply following our criteria for establishing notability - especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. So when you ask me what I think about the $20 Million dollars - you're missing the point. What you and I *think* is irrelevant. What we need to see is an independent third party writing independent content (not relying entirely on PR and company announcements or interviews/quotations) discussing (in-depth) the $20 million dollars. Similarly, "coverage" which is made up of PR and Announcements doesn't go towards establishing notability regardless of volume. Going public, in and of itself, does not establish notability but its worth highlighting because (in general) there's a greater likelihood of a public company getting noticed and written about. Finally, awards are generally not useful for establishing notability (unless they're notable awards) nor is getting included in a "Top XX" list. HighKing++ 14:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I-SPARSH Scheme[edit]

I-SPARSH Scheme (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 piece of political propaganda that lacks independent notability. Charlie (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Zero coverage in Gnews that I can find and the article is hard to understand, appears to be a poor translation of the native language prose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamari Beti Uska Kal Scheme[edit]

Hamari Beti Uska Kal Scheme (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 piece of political propaganda that lacks independent notability. Charlie (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Does not meet WP:GNG. For what I can find, it's a relatively obscure regional initiative that has no independent notability. The article really fall down on sources, as all of them seem to fall into the WP:PRIMARYNEWS bucket. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shreya Gupto[edit]

Shreya Gupto (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:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Charlie (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO, nothing to indicate this meets WP:ENTERTAINER.
Source eval:
Comments Source
Promo 1. "Shreya Gupto Who Took The Digital Arena By Storm Has A Superb Cameo In Rajinikanth's Darbar". 10 January 2020.
Interview, primary 2. ^ "Being on Camera is a Great Stress Buster: Shreya Gupto". 28 August 2019.
Promo interview 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Lockdown Diary: Shreya Gupta". 10 July 2020.
Promo 4. ^ Jump up to:a b Suthar, Manisha (4 February 2019). "Shreya Gupto and Vishal Vashishtha in Filter Copy's sketch 'Why To Date Bengali Guy'". Archived from the original on 4 June 2019. Retrieved 4 June 2019.
EXCLUSIVE promo 5. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Exclusive: Chennai girl Shreya Gupta to work with Riya Sen in Ragini MMS 2.2".
Database page with two sentence promo bio 6. ^ "shreya". The Times of India. 11 November 2020.
Mention Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth 7. ^ "'Characters are made queer so that makers feel progressive'". 3 November 2020.
Mention Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth 8. ^ "Stories On Lesbian Relationships Without Any Male Protagonists Sharing the Spotlight". 8 April 2021.
WP:BLP require strong sourcing. Ping me if WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth are added to the article; two sources that clearly meet WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV adressing the subject directly and indepth combined with #'s 7 & 8 above would pass WP:N.  // Timothy :: talk  01:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dibley-Dias[edit]

Matt Dibley-Dias (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, reads like a list of facts and does not prove notability JMHamo (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above. This shouldn't really even be an AfD imho. Styx (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve - An infobox should be added to the article. Jõsé hola 06:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Seawolf35 (talk - email) 13:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Festo Dugange[edit]

Festo Dugange (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 seem to past WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE, a BEFORE search yields nothing but primary sources. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 19:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 EMY Africa Awards[edit]

2022 EMY Africa Awards (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 award. The award itself "EMY Africa Awards" isn't notable. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Hristov[edit]

Stanislav Hristov (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 that is some way below our standards in terms of sourcing. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My own Bulgarian searches yielded Topsport, a squad list mention, Blitz, a trivial mention of his departure, and Varna24, which confirms that he joined Spartak after a trial but does not give any in-depth information. The Varna24 is the closest thing to significant coverage but, on its own, is nowhere near GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Kiran (physician)[edit]

Usha Kiran (physician) (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)

Tagged for notability in October, disputed, and then re-added. Not notable as a physician, propose delete for lacking notability. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 17:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rental Health Index[edit]

Rental Health Index (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)

Long orphaned article about proprietary index by a specific narrow company, that doesn't seem to continue being in production -- signs that the article might have been created as a way to promote the index. Not sure what to do with it (hence the discussion). Sadads (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: None of the sources talk about the Rental Health Index, and all I found when searching were Wikipedia mirrors and junk SEO sites. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Rosenfeld[edit]

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

fails GNG, not notable regarding sources Iljhgtn (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think he's probably worthy of coverage, but the sourcing is, unfortunately, probably too thin for notability.[11]. Jahaza (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not listed in Getty ULAN, I can't find coverage for this person Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in Jstor, nothing found in Gscholar or the New York Times. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Jusić[edit]

Omer Jusić (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. Dougal18 (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rowing at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toshiya Takeuchi[edit]

Toshiya Takeuchi (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)

He competed at the 1952 Summer Olympics but didn't win a medal and I couldn't find anything significant enough through a WP:BEFORE search to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional city[edit]

Fictional city (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 major piece of WP:OR. My BEFORE suggests that the topic itself may be notable (stress on may, but [12] and [13] among others seem promising), but sadly we need to WP:TNT what we have and start from scratch. There are unrefenced parts, parts that are effectively unreferenced (what is "Nesselrath (2005)"?) and parts that appear referenced but aren't (ex. the entire 'Purposes' section is sourced to [14], but verification shows that only the last sentence, and arguably not even all of it, can be referenced there - it is effectively pure OR with a fig leaf of "look, this one article mentions somethign slightly related so let's add this as an example and a reference and make it look good"). The same problem applies to second paragraph in the lead, which makes ORish general claims and has references to some works about specific fictional cities. The second half of the article is a fancrufty list of "notable examples" (notable according to whom?). If we feel generous, WP:ATD could be redirecting this to List of fictional settlements (not that this list is particularly impressive, sigh - but that's for another discussion). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Architecture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Regardless of whether the overall topic is notable or not, this current article is just too full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to be retained. None of the information here is actually based on any sources that discuss the actual idea of "Fictional Cities" as a topic, there are just a few (largely terrible) sources on specific places that are then being synthed together to make up a topic. And then there is the fact that this article is trying to tie places from mythology and folklore into the same topic as places that were deliberately created as the setting for a piece of current pop culture without any actual sources linking the two concepts, which is just a huge mess of original research. In short, nothing written in this article is actually based on reliable sources on the topic at all. No prejudice against actually creating a new article after deletion, or using the article title as a redirect (I note that this was originally created as redirect to Fictional location for example) after deletion, but such a blatant piece of original research like this should not be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a citation of a work by Heinz-Günther Nesselrath in our Atlantis article where it says that some people thought it fictional, indicating that part of this is just copy and paste work. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The addition of the town of Walmington-on-Sea 9 years into the article's life doesn't engender much confidence. Uncle G (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should perhaps have been a "List of fictional cities", but it's largely unsourced/OR. We don't need an article on fictional cities, when the list of the things is longer than the prose that should describe them in the lead. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's probably a notable subject as Cities in fiction but this is WP:TNT, "blow it up and start over" material. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. There might be a valid redirect target, but there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete full of WP:OR, this page could be remade with proper sourcing. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is Synth or OR, you pick. Jacona (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast Community News[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a local freesheet, apparently fails WP:GNG as I can't find a single secondary source about it online. Moved to draft once, and immediately recreated. Proposed deletion contested by article creator without comment. Wikishovel (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Australia. Wikishovel (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an unreferenced article that fails GNG. A search in gnews mainly reveals its own website. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG. I agree the sensible action was to move to draftspace to allow creator to develop the page, but they burned their bridge by not responding constructively. Cabrils (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. This is primarily because I think those advocating Keep are putting up such weak arguments that say, basically, being a bad article is not a reason for deletion which is not a great argument to Keep it. That said, if anyone wanted to create a Redirect from this page title or work on this article in Draft space, I would restore it or you can go to WP:REFUND. I just don't see a strong enough consensus to Redirect or Draftify that I can close this discussion in favor of either of those two options. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transformers UK comics[edit]

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

Unsourced, messy list, that doesn't even include all the issues, despite numbering them. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Article I normally don't vouch for this, but given that the Transformers Comics seem notable, a derivative list of individual comics seems warranted. This page is really bad, though, and should probably see significant work before being pushed to the mainspace again. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only solid source I've found so far is this one. I would like to note that this serves as the ONLY article related to transformers UK. The only article about this comic series is a listing of all of its issues. Let that sink in. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with mashing stuff into Google is the comic is called "Transformers", and there's no universal way to denote the British series, which gets called "Transformers UK", "the British Transformers", "Marvel UK's Transformers", and even just Transformers. For example, the Royal Mail stamps were inspired by the 'British contribution' to Transformers, which is the Marvel UK comics.
https://www.comicsbeat.com/uk-royal-mail-transformers-stamps/
On top of that, Simon Furman discusses his work on the series at some length in an interview with Judge Dredd Megazine, and the UK series is covered in whichever Back Issue! covered the Transformers comics (my BIs are in storage because I'm up to my neck in other comics ATM). Also coverage on DownTheTubes (https://downthetubes.net/draft-robots-in-disguise-a-tribute-to-marvel-uks-transformers/). Wizard also probably covered it around the 2000s nostalgia boom as well.
Muddying things is that some Transformers UK material is referred to by the story name, what with international reprints making it no longer British-exclusive, such as Target 2006 (https://www.thepopverse.com/transformers-hasbro-recommendations-comics-stories-books-comic-graphic-novels shows up on GNews, and https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Marvel_Comics_into_Film/V6_uCwAAQBAJ? on GBooks) and there's a bit on Furman's wider impact on the franchise via the British comic at https://www.cbr.com/simon-furman-changed-transformers/
Given that sources are out there and the big problems with the article nominated are mainly due to crap formatting, I'd say it is more beneficial to the improvement of the wider project that someone tries to actually salvage the thing instead of just yelling "Delete" and sniping at other wikis. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's sniping at fandom and calling it bad. I was just saying that fandom and Wikipedia are entirely unrelated in how they work, and that it's annoying when people create poorly sourced articles because they think that we work like fandom. In fact, you referring to fandom as an "other wiki" perfectly proves my point. Industrial Insect (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you assuming the article was created by someone who thinks "we" work like fandom? That's a bad faith reading. The majority of the work on the article appears to have been done circa 2008, before Fandom was even in use as a brand, and when Wikipedia's standards of sources and notability were markedly different; it's also not the person who created the article's fault that it hasn't been brought into line with the differing standards implemented since.
Again, the article's root subject seems notable. AFD is not clean-up. If its current format is so abhorrent to you it's not a protected page or anything... BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Its bad" is not and will never be a good reason for deletion. Draftifying helps nothing 99% of the time.★Trekker (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I could only get behind Draftify if a) the page was dangerously misleading and b) there was someone in this AfD right now saying they'd be on it in the next few days. Otherwise for an article that has problems with being too difuse, no 'parent' page and seemingly no editors with the time and inclination to rectify its problems any time soon it would effectively be a soft deletion. The sources are there for notability, without even much digging, and while awfully formatted it's no less valid than the spin-off pages of any other notable comic. As a British comic it is broadly on my radar, especially considering its sales and it being one of a surprising few to continue to generate lasting overseas interest (the entire run has been reprinted by a major American publisher, which might be unique for a British comic). But I'm maybe 15% through the work I hope to do on AP/Fleetway/IPC so even if Marvel UK is next on the list after them it will be months, and that's assuming I don't flake. TBH if I was King of Wikipedia and/or won the lottery and could devote the time to it I'd tear most of the comics pages on Wikipedia down and build them up from scratch, but that's a different discussion, and one to be had by people who are actually going to do the work.
TLDR the page's issues are outside the remit of AfD. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:GNG, zero references, no indication of notability. --Mika1h (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nagol0929 (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - AFD is not a vote. Also, the nomination is certainly not advocating for keeping, so this vote does not make a whole lot of sense in general. Rorshacma (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is pretty dubious if this even meets any kind of notability guidelines, and even if it did, being completely unsourced means that it certainly fails WP:V and potentially runs afoul of WP:OR. I suppose I would not have any strong objections if it was used as a redirect to The Transformers (Marvel Comics), but I don't think this is a particularly plausible search term. Rorshacma (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It doesn't appear that this meets WP:NLIST, and even the UK-specific series as a whole is borderline. I don't see redirection of this title being helpful. Tollens (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Transformers (Marvel Comics) or Draftify as WP:ATD there's no need to delete this and the history will be valuable when we finally get around to improving Transformers articles in the encyclopedia. This seems likely to be notable based on print sources, given the era. Also a note that published material is implicitly verifiable to itself so this isn't completely unsourced. —siroχo 08:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Nagol0929 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S. Raja Reddy[edit]

S. Raja Reddy (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. No sources found Nagol0929 (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cutler (wrestler)[edit]

Jon Cutler (wrestler) (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 notable pro wrestler. No in-deep coverage about him HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP — Czello (music) 11:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the opposition to the PROD appears to have come from the article's subject, and was very possibly not a challenge to the article's actual suitability for deletion. Tollens (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lohum[edit]

Lohum (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)

previously deleted and moved into draft. Draft:Lohum Cleantech. Advertisement of Lohum. GregChi (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per, WP:RSP, I did an analysis on the sources used in this article, ignoring those NOT on the list.
  • Forbes (Reliable source)
  • The Times of India (Situational source)
  • Financial Times (Reliable source)
These sources are a minority, not counting duplicates. The rest of the sources do not count to notability. It is kind of written like an advertisement, but we can always WP:BLOWITUP if it passes notability. (I have some end crystals and obsidian in my offhand, don’t mind the Minecraft reference.) But given a google search on the article, there is not much reliable sources so I’d say delete it. Ping me if any reliable sources (aside from the ones on the article) are found. Brachy08 (Talk) 03:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: The information in the draftified version gives a clearer summary of this battery recycling start-up in various respects. However, sticking to the question of notability, despite all the chaff of partnership announcement references in this instance, there are several substantial pieces about the company (Forbes India 22/3/21, Business India 13/12/21, Times of India 10/3/23), possibly sufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey AllyD, are you seeing some "Independent Content" any some of those? Which ones? I'm just seeing stuff based on interviews and regurgitated company info. What am I missing? HighKing++ 12:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Maybe I'm missing something, lets see if anyone can point to something I might have missed but for now, I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. No clear consensus. AfD was opened by a blocked sock. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 04:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juma Hassan Killimbah[edit]

Juma Hassan Killimbah (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 only has one reference listed, which is the link to a CV on the Paraliament of Tanzania's website. Wikipedia’s guidelines recommend providing multiple, reliable sources to ensure WP:VERIFY.

The article fails WP:NOTABILITY because the article does not provide enough information to establish the notability of Juma Hassan Killimbah (according to wikipedias standards).

From what i’ve seen, Wikipedia guidelines for “biographies of living persons” require that the information must be “verifiable and neutrally presented, with an emphasis on high-quality secondary sources.” The article lacks sufficient biographical information and references to MEET these guidelines. Geko72290 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No coverage found in Gnews or newspapers. A general Gsearch only brings up non-RS or what look like blog sites. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Parliament of Tanzania. His WP:COMMONNAME seems to exclude his middle name, as I was able to find several sources without it (ex. [15][16] (paywalled)). Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will further add that, per [17], only around 50% of Tanzania's population has access to the internet, so more in-depth sources are likely to be offline. The article's present sources provide enough of a baseline to surpass WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To reiterate a point I made below, part of the purpose of WP:NPOL giv[ing] presumptive notability [is] in part for articles like this, where offline sources are guaranteed to exist but aren't digitized or [easily] accessible online. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A member of a national parliament would normally meet WP:NPOL. At the same time, this article does not say much other than he was a member of parliament. If it can't be improved by reliable sources that cover Tanzanian politics, then it probably should be redirected to List of Tanzania National Assembly members 2005–2010. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: There is enough here now that I'd keep it instead of redirecting. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having satisfied the subject's status, per NPOL, overwhelming community consensus that members of national parliaments have presumed notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b - I would have speedy closed this because of the socking, but your delete !vote takes precedence - are you willing to reconsider given WP:NPOL and recent additions? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The two above are paywalled, I'll take a look using the common name as suggested. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added one already to the article, it's viewable via archive.org, the other appears not to be. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does meet NPOL, but there is no sourcing to be found. I tried "Juma Killimbah site:.tz", only hits are on legal decisions and the Parliament of Tanzania website. I can't vote !keep, I'd be ok if it was sent to draft to help find more sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notwithstanding NPOL's provisions for presumed notability, multiple sources have been added to the article now. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't consider the sources added as significant. "X is a politician" seems to be the extent; no sources about the person, only confirmation they hold the post. My !vote above seems to stand, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tanzania National Assembly members 2005–2010: WP:BLP policy clearly takes precedence over NPOL SNG, so NPOL does not apply to this article, WP:BLP requires strong sourcing. None of the sources above or in article meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. There is a good redirect target and it can be split out if sources are found.  // Timothy :: talk  20:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This really seems like a stretch. BLP is fully met, as all the content in the article is fully sourced. This is not a WP:NOPAGE scenario as if it were just a list of elected positions he has had, as the article also includes actions he has done. WP:NPOL gives presumptive notability in part for articles like this, where offline sources are guaranteed to exist but aren't digitized or accessible online. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment somewhat flummoxed by statements above. First, all sources presently in the article are independent, while the parliament of Tanzania source can be considered WP:PRIMARY, it is still independent. Second, "strong sourcing" is not a phrase mentioned anywhere in WP:BLP; is there any reason to indicate that the sources presently in the article are not reliable? Third, nowhere in WP:BLP is there any indication regarding the necessary length of an article - there are no prohibitions against the creation of stubs. Fourth, there is nothing remotely contentious in the article about the subject. Fifth, NPOL (and NPROF) sit somewhat separate from the SNGs/GNG in that they accord notability on the basis of different criteria - precisely because of the scale and inherent powers of parliamentarians, they are going to be notable. Does that mean a 14th Century member of the English parliament of whom we only know a name of should have a separate article? Most likely not. But here we have a politican who it is more than reasonable to assume, given the time and location, that there is further offline sourcing. Sixth, we have overwhelming community consensus that national parliamentarians are presumed notable. Seveth, there is no "trumping" of BLP over NPOL - there's no contradictions between the two. BLP governs content, NPOL provides criteria for notability, they serve different purposes. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, based on the blatantly abusive use of multiple sockpuppets to recreate this after the previous deletions. Getting around the EC protection indicates this isn't the creator's first stab at sockpuppetry, even if the exact master account is uncertain. Given that this is a WP:BLP subject with apparent controversies over politics and religion, keeping the sockpuppet created content would be particularly negligent. I will also be applying full protection to this title and the alternative title that was used for the initial recreation. Anyone who wants to try again can request recreation by showing a draft space or user space version with appropriate sources.

With that said, the better Keep comments did highlight coverage from reliable news outlets that might be the foundation of a viable article, so I encourage future reviewers to keep an open mind about the possible notability of the subject, if and when a "clean" version is presented. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Enenche[edit]

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

Not a G4, and not (yet) a confirmed G5 but no indication notability has changed since the three prior deletion discussions. Making political sermons which garnered attention does not change one's notability. Star Mississippi 13:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 13:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Medicine. Skynxnex (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Still not seeing notability, disappointed to see this return after salting. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 14 is pure PROMO: "His salvation journey, from theatre to the altar, stands out as one of the most inspiring stories for the recruits in the Lord’s army. As a freshly minted medical doctor, he had several attractive choices before his foray into the evangelical ministry, but like the saying – God’s ways are different from man’s ways." Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was E/C and as I said on their talk, I don't think @Whimwhiz knew the history when they moved the article. Star Mississippi 14:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. I agree that most of the source use looks like puffery or just citing opinion pieces from the subject rather than independent coverage. It's possible there could be an angle for BLP notability in terms of political subjects, but that isn't looking clear here either. Since this would be the 4th time the article has been deleted if this AfD goes that way, this definitely needs to be salted as mentioned at the last AfD. KoA (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm seeing a ton of PROMO, but what is the status of this article from Ripples Nigeria? I feel like this is an RS that goes to GNG per my limited investigation into the publisher and the story's author. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As it's simply repeating what he said without any additional context, I don't think it's remotely independent. Star Mississippi 14:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it counts towards notability, but agree on that appraisal of the lack of independence. Thanks for the clarification. Will !vote. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, previous AfDs, and above reply to my comment from Star Mississippi. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Based on the importance of him in Nigerian politics, this article, and the fact there are over 100 news pieces with his name in the title on ProQuest. Yes, making speeches that get noticed repeatedly by the national presses of Nigeria count towards notability whether you like it or not. That is significant coverage in multiple sources. I will be listing some sources in few. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a popular preacher with huge following. There are sources that establish their notability. For example source number one in the article can't be said to be a "promo" and source number six from ICIR where governor of a state reported him to the highest law enforcement officer (Inspector General of Police) is credible and not a "Promo". Again there are sources where the Nigerian ruling party presidential campaign council call for his arrest for his comments and response from different groups defending the preacher are "Promo". Cray04 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it can be used to boost Google search ratings. The flowery language used in sources doesn't help the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At least when I was sorting through sources, those like the first source[18] amounted to WP:FART. There were a number of low quality news sources namedropping him, but the depth was severely lacking or needing more sources actually focusing on him to really clear WP:NBLP. The key problem I see is that sources presented so far don't really make the case for us on this person being notable in terms political or pastoral work. If something has changed since the last three deletions, that should be made more apparent here in order to reassess anything. KoA (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: more sources have been added. He is a notable personality with huge followers and I will present some sources which I strongly believe (based on my beginner knowledge of WP) are reliable and independent to establish notability. The subject is popular among the people and in the media, hence the reason for the “persistent disruption” to create a page where people can read about him. I am not very knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works (I am still learning) so I did not know that others had at different times attempted to create a page in his name and I felt that since there are tons of media reporting about him, he is eligible for an entry in Wikipedia. If there is anything promotional in the article that should be taken out. The subject is noted for being the founder and senior pastor of one of the largest church congregations in Nigeria with branches in other countries. He built the largest single church auditorium with 100,000 seat capacity. The subject has been a vocal voice on national issues. His sermons in his church are monitored and reported by the Nigerian press. Is an individual whose speech is often monitored and reported not of interest to the people? If he was not notable before now, at least his activism against the same faith presidential tick of the Nigerian ruling party was enough to lift the doubt about his notability. Let’s take a look at some sources: here [19] the subject endorsed a presidential candidate and a leading television channel picked it up immediately. Here [20] the subject urged Nigerian electoral commission to be transparent in the result collation process and this was widely reported. Here [21] civil society organization called on national security agencies to arrest the subject “for inciting comments in his sermon”. Would they have called on the security agencies to arrest the subject if he was not a popular figure? Here [22] a sitting governor vowed to federal cabinet minister that he would arrest the subject for inciting comment. These are high government officials discussing this individual. Here [23] this respected newspaper in Nigeria monitors the X (formerly Twitter) account of the subject and reports its activities. See the following media reporting about the subject [24][25][26] [27][28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. Elefausty (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Sockstrike Girth Summit (blether) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please disclose your WP:COI with regard to Enenche and how you happened to come back to editing after a long hiatus just to create this article. Please read WP:BIO for more on what makes a personal notable, which the closer here will make a decision on. Star Mississippi 15:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no special interest in the article but created it based on the subject's notability. And thanks for directing me to WP:BIO. I have read and understood that the subject meets the Basic Criteria which states that: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;". The multiple sources cited in the article combined indicate notability of the subject" and the second clause states that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" but in this instance, the multiple sources cited therein are not trivial because the subject of this article is the main subject in those sources cited in the article and can be clearly seen in the headlines of those media reporting about the subject. An individual's name appearing in the headlines of national press shows strong notability. If an individual is not notable, their names would never appear in the headlines. Please this should be taken into consideration. Elefausty (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Sockstrike Girth Summit (blether) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think the article well establishes notability to a large extent. Subject is a well renowned pastor and televangelist in Nigeria. The sources cited also well meets WP:GNG Mevoelo (talk) 12:40, 02 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, before search brought up multiple sources from reliable secondary and independent publications. Other than the previous deletions, he is a notable televangelist. AllNotAll (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Sockstrike Girth Summit (blether) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm less than convinced with a number of the keep !votes here, especially given the relative strength of the delete contributions. Relisting to hopefully establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I said I would, and then I forgot. But here are some sources: [33][34] (the largest political party in Nigeria calls for his arrest) and [35][36] (coverage by BBC with the former having a "Who is pastor Paul Eneche" section). I agree that most of what is online is superfluous. Regardless, the fact that literally every major newspaper (The Punch, Vangaurd, The Sun, and The Guardian) in Nigeria hangs on to his every word can not be overlooked. I urge some common sense. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- He appears to be the pastor of a megachurch. As such, I would expect him to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU note: The article's creator, Elefausty, the extended confirmed account that was used to move the page, Whimwhiz, and one of the accounts !voting above, AllNotAll, are all the same person (or, at the very least, they are all editing from the same IP addresses as one another within minutes of one another - it's always possible that it's multiple people editing from a single location, one can never tell). I suspect that they are all David Eribe, but it's possible that they're socks of a different master who edits from the same ranges (there is a remarkable amount of abuse from those ranges). Certainly, their comments should be given no weight in this discussion, and the article would probably have been elligible for G5 deletion; I will leave it to whoever closes this discussion to make that determination however. Girth Summit (blether) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - G5 Creations by banned or blocked users. I was on the fence about this before. There appeared to be sufficient sources to pass GNG, although not enough attention was given to the fact that most of these were WP:PRIMARY. I tended to agree with Peterkingiron that the subject ought to be notable, and had not bothered researching to prove the point as it was looking like it was heading for keep. However, in light of the socking, I'll make the point that GNG requires secondary sources, and they have not been found. It really should be deleted under G5. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this article has 36 sources, and person appears to be notable as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NotAGenious (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Mendes-Dudziński[edit]

Marcel Mendes-Dudziński (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, trivial claims of notability JMHamo (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Springfontein Wine Estate[edit]

Springfontein Wine Estate (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 nothing but promote the subject subjectively. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, not WP:NCORP either. Sources don't cover the subject significantly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All sources found are passing mentions or not independent of subject, but I only checked English sources, maybe German or Afrikaans sources might have more. At least based on English references this fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 09:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso D'Attoma[edit]

Tommaso D'Attoma (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)

Originally proposed for WP:PROD. The subject is a player with a marginal professional career and hardly any WP:SIGCOV, apart from just a bunch of passing mentions. [42] Angelo (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After having a look for sources myself I think I agree with your assessment, delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 09:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oumaro Coulibaly[edit]

Oumaro Coulibaly (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)

Originally proposed for WP:PROD. The subject is a player with an extremely marginal professional career and close to no WP:SIGCOV: all I could find was nothing more but a bunch of stats pages with no context and a couple transfer report news, but nothing really worth of WP:GNG. [43] Angelo (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of DC Universe locations. Liz Read! Talk! 09:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Museum[edit]

Flash Museum (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 fictional museum that appears in comic books published by DC Comics". Pure plot summary and a list of works it appears in, no analysis, reception, etc. WP:GNG fail. The best WP:ATD I can think of would be redirectign this to List of DC Universe locations. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of DC Universe locations. Liz Read! Talk! 09:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central City (DC Comics)[edit]

Central City (DC Comics) (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 fictional American city appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics." Plot summary + list of media that it is shown in. No analysis, or reception, etc. Fails WP:GNG. The best WP:ATD I can think of would be redirectign this to List of DC Universe locations. PS. If anyone cares, note that I've also just PRODed unreferenced fancruft at Central City Police Department which IMHO does not merit redirecting - but feel free to redirect it if you feel charitable... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 09:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor Brown[edit]

Pastor Brown (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think sources found by Mushy Yank are enough to change my vote. Kinda press releasy sounding articles but along with the nominations the movie received, they seem to be enough. By the way, the AJC article (not a review) is accessible via archive.org: [48] --Mika1h (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Polyamorph (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vereniging Stop AWACS[edit]

Vereniging Stop AWACS (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:N and WP:NPOV. Issues mentioned in the 2008 AFD were never corrected, and the articles reads as if written by a COI/paid editor/both. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, written like an ad/essay, hard to expand, not Notable, this article is full of issues, i cannot think of a reason to keep this article. -I.R.B.A.T(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files) 12:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notable pressure group. As well as WP:N, this article fails WP:SOAPBOX. Jdcooper (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Switch Mobility#Buses. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optare Bonito[edit]

Optare Bonito (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)

Requested at WT:AFD by IP editor. Rationale stated: Non notable bus, only a small number were built. NotAGenious (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Switch_Mobility#Buses. S5A-0043Talk 06:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ says, Ghofir (17 January 2012). "Optare enters small bus market with the Bonito". Intelligent Transport. Retrieved 9 November 2023.
  2. ^ "The Bonito - Optare's new small & accessible bus - fitted with Drive-Rite Air SuspensionDriveRite Air Suspension Systems, Precision Engineered Air Suspension Products". www.driveriteair.com. Retrieved 9 November 2023.
  3. ^ Banner, Steve (5 April 2013). "Winds of change". www.transportengineer.org.uk. Retrieved 9 November 2023.
  4. ^ Webb, Mary; Clarke, Jackie (2007). Jane's Urban Transport Systems. Jane's Information Group. ISBN 978-0-7106-2816-9.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glaucoma UK[edit]

Glaucoma 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)

Fails WP:NORG. Aside from self-published sources, only source comes from the Association of Optometrists (which appear to be some sort of sponsor/interview/invited content). Author of page has apparent COI. Fermiboson (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is an obituary on the founder, but that's not multiple sources. Flurrious (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Jack (artist)[edit]

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

WP:PROMO. The sources here so far, many which are interviews, are insufficient to establish the notability of the subject. Does not pass WP:NSINGER as well. – robertsky (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Creator has only contributed to this article (excluding 2 edits made on another page) which might possibly could count as COi since the first source is a two paragraph article and likely PROMO. Using the translator tool; most sources read like interviews = WP:Primary sources. No WP:SIGCOV, and does not meet the criteria listed under WP:MUSICBIO. dxneo (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Secret (app). Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Byttow[edit]

David Byttow (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)

Pro forma nomination on behalf of 69.149.121.20, who attempted to transclude an AfD for this article to the AfD logpage in this diff.

Their rationale was: "talk page + talk page for user that made the page indicate there was discussion about deletion due to a lack of noteworthiness, but nothing was documented about why the page was kept over the past few years". jp×g🗯️ 01:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not an expert of WP:BIO but this reads like a Linkedin page of the person's various professional movements and not his independent contributions or impact. I've not done a WP:BEFORE but at least on the available sources it looks like there is some coverage from reliable sources, but heavily leaning into the context of his involvement with Secret, so the few relevant sources could be Merged there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_November_3&oldid=1184521022"