Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 14	September 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in Oregon. Star Mississippi 01:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KYJJ[edit]

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

I am unconvinced that this passes GNG (radio stations need to meet this, NBROADCAST is a failed proposal). The 1st ref is a standard facility record that IMO does not pass SIGCOV. Refs 2 and 3 are from RadioInsight, a site with questionable reliability due to no editorial policies or staff listings. Moreover, ref 2 just has 3 sentences and is definitely not significant coverage. Ref 3 has just 4 sentences excluding the quotes from the press-release that is non-independent. My before search on Google, Google Books, Google News, and TWL failed to find more GNG-meeting coverage. VickKiang (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Oregon as an {{R to list entry}}: our notability standards are much higher in this topic area than they were prior to roughly the time of the 2021 RfC where the NBROADCAST/NMEDIA proposal failed, and a newer station (i.e. one that signed on within this decade) is much less likely to attain sufficient coverage to establish notability. This station was indeed considered not notable when it signed on as a simulcast of KYOZ and the title accordingly redirected to there; the actual article came about after a sale of KYOZ ended the simulcast, and a subsequent reversion to the KYOZ redirect was challenged for the same reason the redirect went away the first time. The IP that made that challenge did suggest deletion as the alternative to the KYOZ redirect, but BCASTOUTCOMES in its current form (i.e., not necessarily the one from prior to that 2021 RfC) does suggest a redirect to list as an alternative to deletion if there is no parent station/entity that would be a valid target. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Oregon A new radio station is a tough GNG sell these days for the reasons described above. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Oregon Though I created the redirect, I always hope more sources can be added, but right now as-is it does seem to be a station only run to eventually get into a larger market, and yet another one-source RadioInsight article with prose barely rewritten (stop it, I'm tired of having to rewrite these because someone else couldn't be bothered to barely make it look like they didn't plagiarize from that site); should've never had an article devoted to it. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect was appropriate at the time, but it became unnecessary after KYOZ was sold and flipped to Worship 24/7. For a while, it simulcasted KZJJ 104.5 but a few months ago Alcon Media adjusted their stations, breaking the simulcast and flipping KYJJ to a simulcast of K285FN 104.9 Kennewick.

The station doesn't have a website as far as I know but it does have a Facebook page -https://www.facebook.com/Lagranx104.9.

If the page for KYJJ must be deleted, I would recommend lumping it with KQFO, since KQFO-HD3 is (supposed to be) feeding the programming heard on K285FN/KYJJ. DX Sphere (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify above that I live in Tri-Cities and have been keeping an eye on these stations since I moved to the area. Alcon Media really does seem to still be organizing their operation. DX Sphere (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parrivaar[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012. PROD'd and restored. Elevating to AFD. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:48, 8 September 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 23:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Easily fails WP:NTV Nagol0929 (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solhah Singaarr[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2019. PROD'd and restored. Elevating to AFD. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:48, 8 September 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 23:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mujibul Hussain[edit]

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

Literally No in-depth coverage at all. only statistical and passing mention. Unable to find a single notable and reliable source that majorly discusses him, with substantial content (in English at least) Fails to meet GNG or any specific biographical guidelines. Created by User:Lugnuts who seems to have created a lot of these nonnotable articles. This is my 3rd AFD of their articles X (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. X (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Fails WP:GNG, and given there isn't a suitable list to redirect to here per WP:ATD, delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 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 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NBIO.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 12:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The 'figurative' use of the term already exists on Wiktionary. The 'South Asian English' and 'Shanghai' variants are unsourced, thus not eligible for transwiki; the 'computing slang' gloss might be legit, but the source provided ... I don't think that's definitive or reliable in the Wikipedia-sense (I could be wrong), so same no-transwiki argument applies. Deleting here doesn't impact creation possibilities over at Wiktionary. In regard to the 'but it's REAL' comment, not every real thing is represented in Wikipedia, for better or worse.‎. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peon (slang)[edit]

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

nn slang term. Wiktionary enough. - Altenmann >talk 18:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary redirect: Reads like a dictionary definition and I don't think it is a bad idea to redirect to the relevant Wiktionary entry. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDICT The term already exists in Wiktionary.— Maile (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTDICT. AryKun (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary redirect would be best. TH1980 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The (slang) disambiguator suggests that this is intended as dictionary-type content. Usage of the word peon in various times and places is discussed at Peon, making this article unnecessary. I also don't see evidence that an article is likely to be recreated at this title, as described at WP:ATD-TRANS. Cnilep (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove this article. It is real story and person who has real achivments in cinematography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezop2676 (talk • contribs) 3:22 am, 5 September 2023, Tuesday (11 days ago) (UTC−4)

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

Do not remove this article. It is real story and person who has real achivments in cinematography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezop2676 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teymur Hajiyev[edit]

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

Seems like WP:PROMO, the creator might have connection with the person — Toghrul R (t) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Azerbaijan. — Toghrul R (t) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though I am the author, I have no connection to the guy. But I am inside Azerbaijani filmmaking circles and work for an art magazine, therefore notice novelties. The article provides basic information. Cavidaga (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Teymur is a well-known film director and producer, and the article has enough sources to confirm this. But at the same time, the article needs to be edited to make it look more neutral. The article needs to be edited but not deleted. RufatM (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Strong evidence for a promising career and is well known by the international film festival circuit and European Film Academy professionals.

ContributorMix (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG and WP:BLP. Sources in article do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Interviews, mentions, promo for films do not show notability for an individual, even if that individual is mentioned or listed. BEFORE found nothing but more promo and mentions and keep votes above provide no sources. // Timothy :: talk 19:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Yaqub[edit]

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

Historical scholarship does not document, much less discuss, our subject. References are based on local folklore. Jaunpurzada (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. -- Jaunpurzada (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Local folklore can still be a valid subject assuming the sources are suitable and the information if verifiable. Do the existing sources not check out? The figure is a little hard to search for as it's quite a generic name. There is of course the possibility of alternative spellings, as well as further local language sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does seem to be coverage of his reputed shrine in local media. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia: The existing coverage of our subject seems to always be in reference to the location/holder of tomb. As notability is not inherited, it cannot be shown that our subject is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia as an individual and not as a tomb resident. Jaunpurzada (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Your opinions on what should happen with this article are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the caveat that there might be foreign language sources I don't have access to, I cannot find anything that demonstrates Yuqub himself is notable; anything I found was as mentioned by Jaun above relating to the tomb itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom lacks indepth references.Lankanrhino (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmachal[edit]

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

Historical scholarship does not seem to document, much less discuss, the existence of our subject. No mention of this kingdom is found in any of the references in this article except the second one. The second reference relies on romantic pseudo-historical ballads and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Jaunpurzada (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. -- Jaunpurzada (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this fall under WP:RAJ? Two of the four sources are from that period. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Precisely. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG. I could find nothing that supports the subject (one reference to a mountain named Brahmachal) in JSTOR, ProQuest, ProjectMUSE, Google searching for Brohmachol Rajjo, ব্রহ্মাচল রাজ্য, Brahmachal. If a language expert finds something with SIGCOV ping me. // Timothy :: talk 20:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Proto-Indo-European mythology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Proto-Indo-European deities[edit]

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

The substance of this list is the sourced description column. This column is a WP:POVFORK of Proto-Indo-European mythology. The additional list columns are the name column, which gives unattested names to the various reconstructed gods. For the most part researchers are unable to reconstruct these names, and assigning them proto-indoeuropen words for their names is WP:OR and would relie on WP:SYNTH, except that none of these are sourced. Likewise the possible descendants lists are unsourced, and largely reliant on WP:OR. There are commonalities, but tracing these back to PIE roots is often speculative and goes beyond the sources. After the list there are various notes, again with a mix of sourced info and WP:OR, but the sourced information belongs in the mythology article (and is there) and this does not belong in a purported list article. Lastly, this page is unnecessary because a more careful treatment of the information already exists in Proto-Indo-European mythology. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Mythology. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proto-Indo-European mythology as an WP:ATD. Sirfurboy's argument is compelling, but I feel redirect is sufficient here, and will also help readers who may expect this page to exist. —siro χ o 03:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose that article is quite long and difficult to parse for someone who just wants to see a simple list of possible deities. The two articles serve fundamentally different purposes and if you think the list doesn’t serve it’s purpose well then you should edit it so that it serves it better. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that difficult to parse, and the reconstructed pantheon is found in section 4 of that article under pantheon, each deity with a sub heading, labelled in English and with a discussion of what can be reconstructed regairding their names. The difference is that article is more careful about the reconstructed naming of the gods, being faithful to considerable uncertainty in the sources. Your page is full or WP:OR which is why it does not add value, but rather it confuses the issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People read and think differently, so there is accessibility merit to having information presented in multiple ways. In your opinion, is the list article something that could be improved by using similar information as the prose article? —siro χ o 02:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One possible resolution that comes to mind is to make the list into a proper list. Strip it of most informational content and just leave a least of possible reconstructed deities. Av = λv (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Pantheon section of Proto-Indo-European mythology. Both the list and the aforementioned section go over the same topic with similar information. They are also bound to drift apart over the years (as they already did) and the differences may be confusing to readers of both, unless an editor diligently synchronizes them. However, I would not go as far as calling the list a WP:POVFORK and I can understand the motivation behind it. Av = λv (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This set is broad. Clearly deserves stand-alone article. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is broad, but it is also conjectural. Where is the evidence any deity was actually called *H₂eryo-men, for instance? The asterisk tells us this is a reconstructed word, and if you follow the link to the *H₂eryo-men page you find that this, like many of the others, is sourced to Mallory and Adams' Encylopedia of Indo-European Culture. A good source, but misquoted consistently. For *H₂eryo-men, all they say is (in the much longer medical god entry)
Another possible mythic reflection of a healing deity may be seen in the Indo-Iranian Aryaman-Airyaman and the Irish Eremon « *h4erjo-men-).
And that is it. The entry is clear that there is merely a conjectured link, based on linguistics, that an Indo-Iranian god shares a common source with an Irish one. The entry in Mallory and Adams is good, because it provides a conjecture as conjecture, and it lists the reconstructed proto indo-european word as a word, not as the name of the deity, about which we know nothing at all. We don't know if such a deity existed. We don't know if it was treated in terms of animism instead of deity, we don't know if the Indo-Iranian deity was named for a word and the Irish one too. We certainly don't know why this page doesn't describe this as a medical god but lists various other things instead. All that is said is that the existence of gods in two separated cultures points to some common root. What that root is remains conjectural, and no-one in any source says that the name of the PIE god was therefore *H₂eryo-men. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H₂weh₁yú where the same arguments were applied and consensus was to delete that page.

So, yes, you looked at this page and in perfectly good faith have said that this is a broad set of information. On the face of it, it is, but I hope it is now also clear that it is also a nonsense as it is presented here, and a good set of nonsense remains nonsense. Those who have argued for a redirect to Proto-Indo-European mythology have the right of it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sirfboy above. This layout obscures the important difference between those (few) entries that are confidently reconstructed by most/all reliable sources and those that are rank speculation. Not usable in this form. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It is entirely inappropriate to attempt to reduce a topic as complex as this to list format, even ignoring the obvious WP:OR elements involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab De SuperChef[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2019 DonaldD23 talk to me 21:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: before it grows articles for every season and every episode in every season, all based on tv scheduling and promo material. // Timothy :: talk 19:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, no eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Patient[edit]

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

No showing of notability, just a plot hook and cast list. Basically a mirror of the IMDB entry. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no critical reviews found on Rotten Tomatoes, I can't see anything in Gnewspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep, review at Variety [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 03:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Variety, mentioned by Donaldd23 above, and [2]Las Vegas Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter [3] The film has received international distribution (different titles in Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, German, etc.).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the film being shown internationally, showing notability, and the reviews that have been brought on this page, which should be sourced in the article. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources listed above are sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robert Sidaway (actor)#Best of British and Winchester Pictures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Around The World In Seven Minutes And Four Times On Saturday[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. PROD removed DonaldD23 talk to me 22:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Sidaway#Best of British and Winchester Pictures, where the production is mentioned.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genus (comics)[edit]

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

Searches are only bringing up listings and furry wikis. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing any reliable coverage in independent sources - does not appear to meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Major League Baseball 2K9#DS spin-off. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball 2K9 Fantasy All-Stars[edit]

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

Found only one live review from a RS ( https://ign.com/articles/2009/03/11/major-league-baseball-2k9-fantasy-all-stars-review ), checked GameZone's archives and didn't find anything. https://web.archive.org/web/20090428142706/http://nds.gamezone.com:80/gamesell/pro4013.htm QuietCicada (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Baseball. QuietCicada (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Major League Baseball 2K9#DS spin-off per WP:ATD. The game doesn't seem notable, but is worthy of mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Major League Baseball 2K9#DS spin-off per WP:ATD. This game doesn't have WP:GNG coverage to support a standalone article. User:Let'srun 22:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabina Mausam[edit]

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

Unrefenced and not notable actress. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Gujarat. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything in Gnews about this person. No sources we can use, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far from becoming notable. CharlesWain (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACTOR, no SIGCOV in RS, just NetTV4U, film blogs etc. Same when searching for her former surname, "Sabina Malik". Wikishovel (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norminator. Non-notable actress who has only played minor roles in movies. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR, Non notable so called actress. Who has only played minor roles in movies. Mrjoegoldberg (talk)
Delete: not enough to show WP:NACTOR is met Ravensfire (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tejaswini Jadhav[edit]

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

NON-RS And Not Notable Actor having paid articles, (Ahmedabad Mirror in Specials Section and Mentioned Instagram Handle too). Other than FirstIndia and Ahmedabad non of these are looking good sources. Syed Aala Qadri (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Maharashtra. Syed Aala Qadri (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article about a non-notable model. Sources are PR/PUFF pieces. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huston Huddleston[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable person. Valereee (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person who seems to have very little credible output. Created by the now-blocked sock who also created Hollywood Science Fiction Museum. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yakuza Esports[edit]

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

Zero third-party reliable sources to indicate how this orgnization meets notability crtieria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The clear sources from all the local tournament organizers and the previous tournament organized by the organization collaborating with some of the top universities in sri lanka and schools details are involved in the referral section. Thumula Kulajitha (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

further more if needed i can send you an official email by the governing body of the sri lanakn esports to proving the status of authenticity of the organization. and if theirs any additional things from our end to be provided to the admins of wiki we are ready to provide as maintaining a wiki article is a plus for the our prestige organization. As the organization is a 3 year old organization and still in its improving stage, So re consider the deletion warning to the article please Thumula Kulajitha (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can check the Tournaments records section i belive you will find many of the events shout cast and also the registered roster details provided, If those doesn't meets enough requirements

please do let me know what we should do from our end Thumula Kulajitha (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Organizations, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are a esports organization who develops players skills and we are based in Sri lanka and we have to mention the game we do play, So mentioning them is the reason for the page to be deleted ? This my first official article written and all the time spent to this and all the research i did just in seconds going to be deleted even though i have provided all the necessary in the way i can provide :(, Please do reconsider as i have made so much time in to making this. Thumula Kulajitha (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the page is being considered for deletion is because of the sourcing. As it is, there are no reliable sources that establish that the subject is notable. The fact that you say "we are" leads me to believe you have a conflict of interest. WhoAteMyButter (🌇_talk│🍂^contribs) 23:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also keep in mind that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Remember that is is no deadline, so the age of your organization does not matter. WhoAteMyButter (🌇_talk│🍂^contribs) 23:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are simply no reliable sources. The vast majority of sources are all social media sites, and thus self-published. (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube) The rest do not have significant sources, or do not mention the subject. Attempting to find sources online yields no results, with the top results all being personal websites. WhoAteMyButter (🌇_talk│🍂^contribs) 23:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Seems to be slightly promotional and has a list of non-notable names. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find no reliable sources covering the subject. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 00:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; page is clearly meant to be promotional and written through conflict of interest. Nothing to be found of notability unless there are non-English sources due to where this team is based. NegativeMP1 20:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly -WP:SELFPROMOTION. Dan arndt (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing GNG. Even if sources were found, it would need a WP:TNT because it was written as if it was an extension of their marketing/PR materials. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would need a WP:TNT to have any WP:GNG Compliance Seawolf35 (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage by an unaffiliated party, in addition to admitted WP:SELFPROMOTE. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Science Fiction Museum[edit]

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

This just seems to be a non-notable future project. Valereee (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Museums and libraries, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for multiple reasons: Created by a now-blocked sock - same sock that created Huston Huddleston. Museum was proposed 11 years ago, and article written 8 years ago, but doesn't look like the museum was never built. The bottom paragraph says it was re-named in 2019, but never built. — Maile (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a proposed museum that does not appear to have gained physical or news media traction. Star Mississippi 01:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also this and this,this and this, or even this or this in case a redirect or a move is appropriate but I would not find it shocking if this is kept. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WDYH-LD[edit]

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

Another HC2/DTV America station with a short operational history (and based on FCCData's "periods of silence" list obtained via FCC filings, by "short" I may as well mean "razor-thin", it seems), no local content, and probably no significant (or any) coverage. (And yes, this is another station of this type previously included in that failed bulk nomination.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (and the reasoning in the K04QR-D nom I wrote). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without seemingly any WP:SIGCOV, this subject fails all notability guidelines. User:Let'srun 03:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even believe this station ever broadcast as the two contributors to the article outside maintainers look like they've never been anywhere near Augusta to confirm the station's existence as a going concern (most TV stations wouldn't downgrade their main channel from 16:9 HD to a 4:3 SD channel, even among HC2 sub farms, as this article somehow asserts). Nate • (chatter) 23:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election. Please do not convert this Redirect into an article until she is notable for her political achievements and not a scandal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Gibson[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E; unelected politician whose notability stems from having consensual sex with her husband. The article also has major NPOV issues by presenting aforementioned consensual sex with a spouse as scandalous. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Virginia. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I wrote the original article draft that another editor published. I’m not sure how this violates WP:NPOV. I created the page to try and give the subject a fair portrayal given the sensitivity of her controversy.

I quoted both Gibson and her opponent. As well as her lawyers’ statement about a possible legal violation against Gibson. I also described how reactions were varied.

I have tried to be much more discreet than the sources themselves.

Reliable sources are characterizing the situation as a scandal.

If there is any confusion, the scandal is not a politician having consensual sex but streaming it online for tips.

It’s definitely a valid opinion that it should not be seen as a scandal, but I am only characterizing it as the sources have and by following a reasonable definition of the term.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scandal

For one who objects to the definition’s implication of wrongdoing. Definition 3 would still apply. “malicious or defamatory gossip”

I am thinking of expanding the controversy section to include more reactions because the situation could indicate a turning point in how the public views the sex lives of politicians.

In terms of WP:BLP1E, I think this could fall under it. But I will leave it to more experienced editors to decide. YordleSquire (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify: I think this probably fails WP:BLP1E. Also, she fails WP:NPOL, so unless there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage or she is eventually elected this article probably shouldn't be in the main space. However, since @YordleSquire appears to have created the article in good faith I'd support moving it back to draft space and letting them work on it (if there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage to add or if she is later elected). But it probably shouldn't stay in main space, they aren't notable for anything other than this scandal right now. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am amenable to putting it back in draft. I am a new editor and submitted the article a few days ago. It was declined under WP:NPOL and I asked Treehouse for guidance and learned about some relevant policies.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#13:36, 13 September 2023 review of submission by YordleSquire

I stated there that I would not resubmit unless there were further developments. As mentioned, another editor moved the article to main space. It was exciting getting my first article to main, but I will defer to consensus.

In any case, I would appreciate being able to have it back as a Draft if it is not appropriate for main space in case she wins her race. YordleSquire (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defending censorship. Priceless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.224.21.211 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added a sentence to the article summary to possibly help with notability.

The Politco opinion piece which defends Gibson describes it as the first political sex video to spread online.

To quote them directly:

“But never before Gibson’s case has a politician’s hot video action spread on the internet.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/12/candidate-livestreamed-sex-acts-00115395 YordleSquire (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) they were already notable enough for some other reason to get an article on those other grounds anyway, or (b) they can show credible evidence that their candidacy is somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance.
Imagine that she loses the election and then never does another notable thing as long as she lives, such that "once ran for election and lost" remains her peak notability claim for the rest of her life — under those circumstances, do people still care about any of this into the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s? We would need to see some evidence of that being true, but this isn't showing that at all — as of right now, this all just makes her a WP:BLP1E rather than a topic of enduring importance. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected politicians are not notable unless they've done other things as well, which is not the case here, and there are also NPOV issues. SportingFlyer T·C 08:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on what you specifically see as NPOV issues? In the case that she does win her office. I will try and fix them.

All of the reliable sources regarding Gibson focus on her controversy. I have not characterized it any differently than how they have. YordleSquire (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To help address any NPOV concerns I have changed the sentence

“Gibson received widespread national attention after a sex scandal revealed that she had streamed pornographic acts online.”

to

“Gibson received widespread national attention after videos surfaced of her streaming consensual sex with her husband which had been recorded without her knowledge.” YordleSquire (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If she loses this is still a flagrant WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not move the draft to mainspace. Another editor did. I’m more than happy to have it back in Draft. I’m relatively new here so not sure if that’s something I can do myself. YordleSquire (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. Only elected officeholders are presumed notable per WP:NPOL. Apart from her sex tape or whatever it is which has given her much publications, no other prove of notability. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election#District 57. Agree that she is not notable yet, but the general practice here is to redirect to the article on the election. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election. Coverage remains WP:SUSTAINED since the "scandal" broke and clearly will continue at least through the election in November. Material here shouldn't simply be deleted as it is now a key storyline in the 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election and could affect its outcome. Per left-leaning Slate, "Susanna Gibson's unexpected scandal could lose Virginia Democrats the state Legislature" [4] Loksmythe (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AP has now published 3 articles regarding Gibson.

What generally qualifies as WP:SUSTAINED?

https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-of-delegates-sex-acts-9e0fa844a3ba176f79109f7393073454

https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-sex-acts-c2a130b84452b524279b0a496fca2c99

https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-videos-virginia-cae7c9af7117c1a51411278a0a09ebbc YordleSquire (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 2023 Virginia elections. This individual is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability (people) spells out three criteria for any biography. This subject does not meet one, let alone all three of them. For all of the "look at the coverage," people. The article consists of run of the mill election coverage and the Chaturbate incident which does not provide substantial coverage of the subject. That coverage would fall under the disqualifiers for articles as an individual highlighted by subjects notable for only one event. The fact that this one incident has been put on a lot of websites does not lend notability to her candidacy. We should not create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. Additionally, it is too soon to know if this will matter to the greater historic record. This story was first published by the Washington Post (which is a LOCAL PAPER when covering Virginia state elections) less than two weeks ago. It is too soon to determine if this will meet any sort of enduring notability in the historic record as opposed to Christine O'Donnell, Pro Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson), or Lar "America First" Daly. Finally, this individual would not meet the criteria to be covered for pornography or sex work which I cannot find, but I know it's not "appeared on a cam site."--Mpen320 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpen320 I just want to thank you for writing out the argument she does not meet notability requirements for pornography or sex work, because the thought never crossed my mind and I laughed when I read it. Rare is the argument that is both true and funny, fantastic work! TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This candidate is getting tons of news coverage, making her notable. -- LiwenAristodemos (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Among that coverage, what sources do you think are lifting her from "temporarily newsy" WP:BLP1E territory into "will actually still be a topic of enduring interest a decade from now" WP:10YT territory? It's the latter test that she would have to meet. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. DarrellWinkler (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jaime Maussan. If an editor want this article to exist, under this title or another page title, feel free to take this AFD to Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Mexican Congress alien corpses display[edit]

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

Fringey and covered in Jaime Maussan already, this does not deserve its own article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and redirect to Jaime Maussan to be included with his other similar claims. No standalone notability aside from WP:RECENTISM WP:SENSATIONAL coverage.~~ Rename as "Peruvian alien mummy hoax (or hoaxes)", per VdSV9 and 5Q5. Rewrite using all the RS we have regarding all the Peruvian "alien mummies" hoaxed to date. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep: A hearing of a legislative body can meet notability guidelines. I'd like to see if there is some more lasting coverage (WP:SUSTAINED) or more hearings before deleting. I do want to note that all of the current sourcing is mostly American coverage in English and we have 0 sourcing from Mexican sources so some expansion with coverage from the country involved would probably be good. If there is no WP:SUSTAINED or expansion of the page with other sources, I may be persuaded to change to a delete vote in a few days. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can always recreate it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean sure, I guess that's an editing philosophy difference. We can give it a few days to see if the article develops or we could delete now and recreate if the sourcing emerges later. I don't have strong preferences here, just the opinion a legislative hearing that makes international headlines may be able to meet WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, this is not about the hearing, but one aspect of it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and redirect to the Maussan bio where the context is clearer. There is clearly not going to be sustained discussion regarding the 'corpses' that doesn't centre on Maussan. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: Given that this article was translated to create Exhibición de cadáveres de extraterrestres en México de 2023 [es], do we need to do anything extra to make sure a version history is preserved to show the version that the Spanish article was translated from? I haven't participated in an AfD with a live translation on another Wiki before so was just curious if there was anything additional we have to do because of it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are worried, you can list the usernames over at the other language's page. That should satisfy the terms of CC-BY. jps (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, I'll do that if the article is AfD'ed. Just noting the author here since the article history will be deleted:Ainty Painty.
  
  Also, if anyone knows how to save just one version of the article history at AfD, it looks like it was translated from this version (judging from the time of publication of the Spanish version). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SENSATION. jps (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jaime Maussan as WP:SENSATION Parham wiki (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is part of a long pattern of hoaxing by Maussan, and it makes sense to group this in with his other hoaxes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—unless this display is confirmed as another stunt from Maussan, keep the article up until there's actual confirmation that the corpses are fake (per WP:WAIT and WP:N). Redirect to Maussan's page and include information that this was Mexico's first congressional UFO hearing (per LuckyLouie) - MateoFrayo (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The corpses are fake. This is another stunt from Maussan. These are some of the same bodies that have been shown in the past. VdSV9•♫ 00:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a source that actually confirms it, then it shouldn't be renamed/redirected. - MateoFrayo (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the National Autonomous University of Mexico has stated his claims make no sense, and they only tested the sample they were sent for carbon 14 dating and nothing else. So he is lying about that (for a start). Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the guy's a notorious conman, don't get me wrong—but following Wikipedia policy, unless there's confirmation that the corpses are fake, the article shouldn't be deleted. - MateoFrayo (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article's not up for deletion because the corpses are fake or not fake, the authenticity of supposed alien bodies doesn't apply to this AfD. (And anyway we now have a preponderance of RS that say it is one more in a long line of fakes) The AfD question is, do we need both a bio of Maussan *and* an article about his claims that duplicates the same material in both. (And the default is not "alien until proven fake" - when other more simple explanations are more likely). - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the majority of people on this forum, including myself, are suggesting renaming the article rather than keeping/not keeping it—regardless, I genuinely hope I'm not saying "alien real until otherwise fake"; what I am saying is that since current news outlets have yet to confirm whether or not the corpses are real, Wikipedia literally cannot (per WP:RB) simply say that they're fake, since that may be considered original research (even though the corpses probably are). - MateoFrayo (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source has stated that the 'corpses' are real. 'News outlets' are not qualified to make such assertions, and accordingly aren't WP:RS if they do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we can't say the "corpses" are real but we can't say they're fake either haha.

Also, news agencies (which are often cited by news outlets), such as Reuters and Associated Press, are "reliable for [basic] statements of fact." But that's not what I'm arguing—I'm arguing that Wikipedians do NOT decide if there are other explanations for something are more likely than something else. It's not our job to analyze the corpses or do interviews with Maussan, we simply just make articles from reliable sources.

However, since Wikipedia generally follows a consensus from its community, and there are always exceptions to everything, maybe we could rename the article title to include "hoax." I would still recommend that we Keep the Article & Wait For Further Confirmation From RS. - MateoFrayo (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me like it is MateoFrayo who is. I didn't provide a link in my first response to you because one had already been added to the Maussan article and to this one, and several have been added since. There are plenty of articles, the Wired one, the Vox one, that explain exactly what I said above: that These are some of the same bodies that have been shown in the past. The AP link included in your last comment explains this. I'm finding it strange that, in the same comment where you include one RS explaining that this is another stunt from Maussan, you explain how we shouldn't do OR and need to rely on RS. VdSV9•♫ 00:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am Maussan...or I'm just the Devil's Advocate here. Either way, I agree that the corpses are probably hoaxes, and the AP article I linked does say researchers in Mexico believe that the corpses are fake; but the authenticity of the corpses is still somewhat disputed and the topic is still being reported by news outlets.

Regardless, please allow me to clarify my position, before we keep bickering about the same thing:

Corpses are most likely fake, and scientists are calling it the corpses a hoax. However, this discussion is about whether or not we should rename the article, or merge with one of the sections in Maussan's page.
Now, I'm against the move and rename—not cause I'm Maussan and I like to spread misinformation—but because this is Mexico first congressional event on UFOs (Also shortly after the US's). It's much bigger than Maussan's hoax, especially when you have Mexican Navy officials taking out DNA analysis and 3D reconstructions on the remains.
So for now, I simply think we should ~~Keep The Article, Wait For More Information,~~ and relax. - MateoFrayo (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying you're Jaime Maussan. You're a fairly new editor with a low edit count and you may not be familiar with the nuances of how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines work, that's all. So the authenticity of the corpses is still somewhat disputed and the topic is still being reported by news outlets (with a link to the Daily Mail) is a mistake, see WP:DAILYMAIL. Agree we don't need to rush and complete the rewrite/merge/deletion today, and it's generally a good thing to get more WP:RS to respond, but there are no reliable sources that say the alien corpses may be authentic and need more testing, and the preponderance of them agree that it is a hoax. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

especially when you have Mexican Navy officials taking out DNA analysis and 3D reconstructions on the remains The "Mexican Navy official" Dr. José de Jesús Zalce Benítez is a naval surgeon and an old grifter partner of Maussan's: [5]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right—thank you for the clarification and the WP:DAILYMAIL notice, I'll definitely keep that mind for future discussion pages. I'm glad we agree that it's good thing to get more WP:RS when it comes to articles that may be impacted by ongoing/current/recent events; however, I still believe my points regarding that Maussan's shenanigans (intentionally or unintentionally) have resulted in the first congressional event regarding UFOs in Mexico. Even if the article is delete and merged with Maussan's, It should probably still be noted in the respective section of his article. Nevertheless, thanks for the assist and staying cool, Louie. - MateoFrayo (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Peruvian alien mummy hoax" or something along those lines and make it about the whole thing.VdSV9•♫ 00:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, agree with editor VdSV9. Rewrite covering the earlier Peruvian "alien mummies" as well (see my updated comment further down). Add to Mummy forgeries, List of hoaxes, List of UFO-related hoaxes (if appropriate), and Category:Hoaxes. Here's one source to justify: ABC News/AP: Scientists call fraud on supposed extraterrestrials presented to Mexican Congress Quote: In 2017, Maussan made similar claims in Peru, and a report by the country's prosecutor's office found that the bodies were actually "recently manufactured dolls, which have been covered with a mixture of paper and synthetic glue to simulate the presence of skin." The glue explains why no pins, screws, or wires show on the X-rays holding the bones tightly together. 5Q5|^✉ 12:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the best way to handle this is combining all the RS to cite a renamed article that covers all the Peruvian mummy hoaxes - then deleting and merging Jaime Maussan into that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jaime Maussan. I think this probably meets GNG, having been discussed in sources that aren't just sensation fodder, but per WP:NOPAGE I think the information would be better presented in the context of Maussan's biography. If anyone wishes to write a general article about "Peruvian mummy hoaxes", they can do so; that doesn't really affect this AfD. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If people think we need an article on the hearing, create one, as this is not about the hearing it's about Maussan's claims. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per users VdSV9 and 5Q5 given standard titling customs for hoaxes and stunts. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with revised renaming: Current title: "2023 Mexican Congress alien corpses display". Rename the last three words: "2023 Mexican Congress hearing on UFOs" (should have been named that from the beginning imo) and include mentions of everything that happened. This title would be in line with the U.S. version 2022 United States Congress hearings on UFOs, which also covers the first 1969 U.S. hearing. The controversy with the mummy hoaxes could take months, even a year to resolve. We can't keep this AfD open indefinitely. The proposal to end this, then, is to rename the last three words in the title, add the other speakers and topics, and continue building content within it regarding all the related Peruvian mummy hoaxes (news articles are connecting them also). We will better know in the future if a stand-alone Peruvian mummy hoax article is warranted. Perhaps when the time is right, someone can do an RfC on the talk page proposing it or go bold and publish it. Until then, Jaime Maussan's article can link to this 2023 renamed Mexican Congress article or its hoaxing allegation section on the mummies. 5Q5|^✉ 11:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Rename per above. Jp2593 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KFC advertising#KFConsole. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KFConsole[edit]

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

WP:NPRODUCT failure. NPRODUCT requires some degree of sustained coverage. All sources in this article are from Dec 2020, when the promotion product was announced. Over the years since, there has been no further news or details about the product, and no significant sustained coverage. Using WP:VG/S's custom reliable source search finds that since 2020, Techradar has mentioned the console a couple times, basically simply recapping the announcement details as there are no new details. Otherwise, it's largely forgotten by press. If and when the console actually releases, it can always be recreated if it becomes notable. But right now, it is not. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to KFC advertising#KFConsole Agree that there's a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to KFC advertising#KFConsole with the presumption that it can be re-created if it turns out to not be vaporware. There is little WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this product, and most of the sourcing in the article is either based on product announcements that all share similar structure and content, or speculation on if this product will be released. The Night Watch (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KFC advertising#KFConsole - appears to be a flash-in-the-pan advertising gimmick/hoax that fails WP:SUSTAINED. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kanna Phaneendra[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Internet searches shows some coverage of the death of the subject's wife, but does not show sigcov of the subject. TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is not even claiming that he's ever held any political role that would confer passage of WP:NPOL, but the article isn't sourced even remotely close to well enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG instead of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article describes him as a politician but he has never held any governmental or party position that I could see. Sources are either about his father or only amount to passing mentions. WP:TOOSOON. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cyprus women's international footballers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Ttakka[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. The subject has earned five caps for the Cyprus women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cyprus. JTtheOG (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nominator. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I found a few Greek sources like Ginekio but nothing with enough detail for a GNG pass Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oisis Sediles[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nicaragua women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Orellana[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least five caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Nicaragua, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 El Salvador women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Cortez[edit]

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least six caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 El Salvador women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Ramírez[edit]

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least two caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. The merge proposal can be further discussed in the article's talk page, if necessary. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological heritage of Armenia[edit]

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

I think there is a lot of WP:SYNTH here. It is also undercited and without a lede. TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per strong rationale below. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - No reason to believe any of the issues raised can't be solved with time and more maintenance tags, article is easily notable enough to exist in one form or another. Even just hiding anything you're not certain of and leaving a stub template should solve any concerns. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --- The article is cited to multiple reliable sources which seem to be directly relevant and to establish the subject's notability. There are some Passages where it is unclear that they are covered by the preceding source, as seems likely; but even if those are uncited, they cannot render the topic non-notable. The editor is surely not a native English speaker - most likely Armenian - and there are some defects of style, but basically the article is in good shape and just needs some tidying-up. Deletion would be utterly inappropriate in such a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiswick Chap (talk • contribs) 17:18, September 15, 2023 (UTC)
Strong Keep - As per rationale above. Archives908 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archaeology in Armenia. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD has been withdrawn so it will be kept, I do think it needs some clean up though. - Indefensible (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Livingston[edit]

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

Subject does not have the sustained coverage to meet WP:GNG as the winner of a minor beauty pageant. Let'srun (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Mexico. Let'srun (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cierra Kaler-Jones[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG as a beauty pageant winner. Let'srun (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Jersey. Let'srun (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Chavy[edit]

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

13 years with notability concerns; no reliable sources, no notable posts held; looks like CV BoraVoro (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only finding press releases and a couple of extremely passing mentions in questionable sources, in addition to those in the article. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or any other notability standard that I can find. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Dernoncourt[edit]

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

14 years with no reliable sources; routine announcements across the web don't help much; delete per WP notability issues BoraVoro (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources to be found. There are some mentions in PR, which aren't sufficient to meet WP:GNG or any other notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Island Records discography[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOGUE --wooden superman 13:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 13:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets NLIST. Yes, as is, the article makes no claim of significance for the topic, but it easily could, e.g [6]. Mosaic Records discography is a good example of what an improved version of this article could look like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The label is evidently extremely notable but is a list of its records? It might be difficult to assert a specific source focuses on the discography as a group and not on the label as a whole. But for example, these sources could attest the list is notable as such:[7], [8]. And anyway, the label is so notable that a dedicated page about the discography could easily be considered a detailed article created to make navigation easier in the main article.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d argue there’s a working consensus that discographies of notable labels can be split out if they’re too large to stay as a section. Mach61 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important label, particularly in its early days, and a discography that has received coverage in several sources. --Michig (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lordship of Hasley[edit]

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

Really this should never have left Draftspace because of the poor quality of the sources - I can add a source analysis if that would be useful - but it did, and it's too late to send it back even if it were possible to return an article to draft a second time. Some of the content is salvageable, but a lot is too vague or too inaccurate to warrant keeping, and there is a paragraph of what looks like self-promotion in the middle. I am suggesting deletion for the article itself because the topic Lordship of Hasley is not notable. Manor of Hasley on the other hand might be notable if written in the right way but that seems unlikely to happen as long as the original author(s) want to focus on the "lordship" and slant the content in that direction. It would also be possible to merge the useful parts to the two relevant village articles (Thornton, Buckinghamshire and Radclive. Ingratis (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. Ingratis (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Being lord of a manor is not a title of nobility, though it might qualify the owner to have the status of a gentleman or even squire. The article seems to be about Thornton Hall and the article might be repurposed as a history of that mansion, currently occupied by a girls school Thornton College, but that article redirects to the village article Thornton, Buckinghamshire. I do not think that there is much worth rescuing to merge elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback and every exchange is an opportunity to learn. This was my first attempt at starting an article, "poor quality" sources were unintentionally so. I have no personal agenda with focusing on the "lorship" topic, and the focus was made after researching uncovered the Banes article. I am here to learn, and if the gurus find my contribution unsuitable, then so be it. Cambridge Prof Scholars (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is the manor (Thornton College) notable? That could be a strong WP:ATD if it is. Curbon7 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, and I agree with Peterkingiron that actually there is not a great deal worth saving. The Thornton College website makes - as far I can see - no mention at all of Hasley, and the former Hasley-related website, which is what the claim of a connection is apparently based on, has clearly lapsed and now redirects to a site advertising a London hotel, so there is no reason to mention Hasley under the college. Thornton College has a paragraph under Thornton (Buckinghamshire) because it occupies the former Thornton manor house but may not be notable in its own right. The only usable sources in this article are the VCH and the Baines article. I've already added ~~them~~ Baines to the Thornton article (VCH was there already) as a note to the effect that formerly but wrongly Hasley was thought to be located there, which seems to be all that is required. Ingratis (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Baines (clearly a RS) has shown that the old identification with Thornton is clearly wrong and that Hasley has been subsumed into Radclive. If a redirect were needed it would be to Radclive, but I still think that the best solution is plain deletion.

As Thornton College educates Catholic girls from 3 to 18, it qualifies as a secondary school, which we might regard as notable, but this article is unlikely to be capable of being repurposed for that. The claim to be 18th or 19th Lord of Hasley is plain original research. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying nomination above - delete - inadequate sourcing and no notability - fails GNG. I agree with Peterkingiron on the undesirability of redirecting. Ingratis (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Aviral[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO Expressive101 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have enough sources. Citadeol(talk) 18:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on whether or not the man meets WP:ANYBIO. (Offhand, I'm unfamiliar with the particular awards, etc, and I lack the time to investigate.) But what if he fails to do so? Failure to meet WP:ANYBIO isn't a reason for deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are lots of reliable sources as well as secondary and independent sources to the subject. Fade258 (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article appear to satisfy the WP:GNG by being in-depth, independent, and reliable. I am not familiar with Nepali media so I am relying on Google translate to establish depth and independence and general principles to establish reliability. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TMSN Records[edit]

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

Record label that fails WP:NCORP. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ to allow for continued improvement Star Mississippi 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenzie Weir[edit]

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

Fails GNG with a lack of independent significant coverage of her. Dougal18 (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of sourcing. Various club reports on their websites; this is the only source I found, it's trivial [9] Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON as she may become notable in the not too distant future. Perhaps moving to draft or user space in the interim would be appropriate. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree and partly disagree agree with "Stevie fae Scotland". I think she is likely to become a star of women's football, so she deserves an improved Wikipedia page, not a deletion. TGNorthfield (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject is someone who does not currently meet the level of notability that would be expected for an article, but could well do so in the future. ~~As it stands probably Delete for now, but with the option to restore the article if and when the subjects career has progressed a bit further and she has attracted more coverage.~~ Dunarc (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Amended by Dunarc (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Draftify - @Oaktree b, Stevie fae Scotland, TGNorthfield, GiantSnowman, and Dunarc: I've been able to retrieve several independent and (hopefully) reliable sources/external links that provide a bit more coverage about Weir, so I've updated and expanded the article accordingly. It should be noted that she's just made her debut and scored her first senior goal in the UEFA Women's Champions League, which should help her get closer to minimum WP:GNG. Oltrepier (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on additional sources, and article improvement - but I still don't think it's enough. As such, I agree to drafify to allow further work. Giant Snowman 08:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oltrepier, that's much appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good improvements, Oltrepier. I think it is borderline whether notability concerns are met, though I think this could rapidly change, but would have no strong objections to either keep or draftify. Dunarc (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the additional sources cover Kenzie Weir in depth. Playing football and signing contracts is routine coverage that does not go to passing GNG. Her prelim UWCL appearance wouldn't have made her pass WP:NFOOTBALL so it doesn't make her pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougal18 You're probably right; this BBC article specifically cites her first senior (and UWCL) goal, though, so I suppose it's something... Oltrepier (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Already has enough sources imo. Young plauyer who has played in Women's Super League with ongoing career as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.

Source 1 (The Herald): routine brief call-up announcement that has more info on her dad than on her.

2, 4, 8: Everton FC press release.

3: ESPN match stats.

5: BBC match recap that doesn't mention Weir.

6: Lewes FC press release.

7, 9: Routine transfer news on what seems to be a SPS.

10 (Irish Examiner): Roster in match recap.

11 (The 42): Roster in match recap.

12 (BBC): Passing mention in routine match recap.

13 (L Football): passing mention in tournament recap.

14 (Liverpool Echo): passing mention in interview with dad.

15: Northwich FC press release on her brother.

16 (Scotsman): doesn't mention Kenzie.

These sources are nowhere near enough to establish GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify is probably the best compromise, at this point, but I still think we could even keep it... Oltrepier (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Little participation and no agreement after three relists. RL0919 (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center Tallinn[edit]

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

Non-notable business centre. Despite the impressive name, this is just an office complex that happens to be part of the WTC network. As such, it needs to demonstrate notability per GNG, but the sources cited don't come even close to this, and a search finds nothing of substance. I PROD'ded this at NPP, but the author didn't like that, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NBUILD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Estonia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly difficult to find material on. A little dismayed as well at the lack of coverage on World Trade Centers in general. - Indefensible (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I managed to find detailed coverage in this source, while of uncertain reliability, it pointed me to https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raadio-Elektroonika_Tehas#Hoonestu, which describes the redevelopment project, using sources such as https://arileht.delfi.ee/artikkel/50723547/ret-i-arengugrupp-ootab-pilvelohkuja-ehitamise-luba, and I was able to find http://www.estonianart.ee/architecture/the-new-forekspank-%C2%ADacclaimed-bank-architecture/ as well, searching for sources related to Raine Karp. I'm assuming more can be found in Estonian language sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:31, 8 September 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!} 07:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MIL-DTL-5541[edit]

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

WP:ROTM military standard without WP:SIGCOV that I could find. The closest I got was an analysis of different materials that may be compliant, but it's less about the standard and more about the materials themselves. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 06:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 06:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Defoort[edit]

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

Belgian jazz sax player, no evidence or claim of notability - no charted recordings, evidence of enduring impact or SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Belgium. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article. I, basically, agree with @Alexandermcnabb.
ContributorMix (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tending delete on the arguments but there is sufficient argument that gng is met that I think it isnt quite enough to delete. If this is toosoon then that argument should be more apparent in a couple of months if this gets renominated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Han Willhoft-King[edit]

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

Does not meet guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Sources in non-major footballing country are not adequate for notability. Subject plays for an English football club, Tottenham Hotspur F.C., but is not in the first-team squad, is not even in the under-21s and is only in the under-18s. He is a long way from club or international debut. Article is "too soon". LenF54 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify as WP:TOOSOON, refund if/when he makes it. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whether or not he “makes it” is irrelevant. He meets GNG with significant coverage in Indonesian media. Also, “The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with.” We no longer use WP:NFOOTY in terms of footballer notability. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the guidance at WP:YOUNGATH. Being a notable youth football player isn't enough for notability - nothing to do where the sources came from. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I’ve replied further below giving my reasoning as to why I think he does, and I’ll leave it at that. If consensus is that he is not notable, I understand. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, it’s 2:30am so my brain is not working as usual but I’ve just realised that you said, quote, “Sources in non-major footballing country are not adequate for notability.” Excuse me? How incredibly exclusionary and dismissive of nations with established and growing footballing cultures. It’s a ridiculous comment to make, and just because a nation may not be particularly strong in football, it does not take away from the passion that goes into their support and journalism.

Football is Indonesia’s second sport behind badminton, but it is still a huge sport there, and their first division league gets attendances similar to that of League Two (clearly a very notable league) in England (Liga 1 (IDN), League Two (ENG)). Regardless, Indonesian media cannot be dismissed simply because you don’t think they enjoy football, and most of the sources in the article are fleshed-out, independently researched articles on Willhoft-King. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/reply - if the player appeared regularly in a minor league or in a league in, say, Ireland or Wales, he would not necessarily be regarded as sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The passion of the fans for the sport is irrelevant. He plays for the under-18s only and, as I have suggested, is a long way from making his professional debut. From WP:Notability (sports): "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level." On this occasion the player has not achieved success yet. LenF54 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s what I’m saying, it doesn’t matter what the player does with his career, so long as he meets the basic standards of inclusion - which Willhoft-King does. There are players who never made a professional appearance in football, but the coverage on their careers is still enough to warrant an article (see Sonny Pike and Carlos Kaiser).

Any player in any league in the world can be notable, whether it’s the Premier League or the Botswana Third Division. If they meet the basic requirements for inclusion, they warrant an article. If we only created articles for players who “have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level”, then we’d only have articles for World Cup and continental tournament winners. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft I find this nomination a little concerning, as Davidlofgren1996 pointed out from the nomination, Sources in non-major footballing country are not adequate for notability. This is utterly ridiculous, sources should not be assessed to where they come from. That is a xenophobic comment, and we have no place for that on wikipedia. As for the article, it's possible this can be assessed to WP:BASIC, but in all actuality unless he plays it's running WP:CRYSTAL. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even read the original nomination, I just looked at the article and thought if he never plays professionally, there's not enough here for an article yet per WP:YOUNGATH. Sonny Pike at least had follow up articles written very specifically on him and Carlos Kaiser was a con man. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as above. Giant Snowman
Comment - I’ll make one further comment, mostly just for my own understanding of notability on Wikipedia - from my understanding of the notability criteria, I thought that Willhoft-King would meet the requirements.

Firstly, all of the coverage is secondary and independent of the subject, and there is a considerable number of sources provided, in case the coverage in each is not enough. This should be enough for WP:BASIC, no?

Secondly, it is not just a case of “This is Han Willhoft-King, he is of Indonesian and Chinese descent” in each article, though it is a common theme throughout the sources. I’ll review each source in the order they appear in the article, for simplicity’s sake:

The first Sohu.com source is about his mention in The Guardian as Spurs’ “best” player in his age-group.

The indonewstoday source is pretty routine coverage of how HWK is of Indonesian descent, but this is expected as it’s an Indonesian article about him.

The okebola source is brief, but discusses the possibility of HWK receiving a Indonesian passport.

The Guardian source itself does not count towards notability.

The HITC source again covers his coverage in The Guardian, talking about his career prospects.

The LaiTimes coverage is again about his potential naturalisation, this time to China.

The second Sohu.com source is about HWK signing a contract extension, and covers his appearances for Spurs and the England U16 team.

The Indosport article is similar to the indonewstoday source in that it is routine coverage.

The CNN Indonesia source is about his failure to become naturalised to Indonesia, and withdrawal of the U17 team call-up.

I feel the article highlights different moments of his career so far, and I feel that Willhoft-King currently meets GNG, despite not having made a professional appearance in football. Please let me know if I’m missing anything. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about lasting notability, and while this young athlete has received some coverage, it's because he is of a couple different nationalities and is training at a major club - not necessarily front page stuff. There's not coverage demonstrating that he'll be notable if he doesn't make it. That's exactly why we have WP:TOOSOON and WP:YOUNGATH - it's probable he will be notable at some point, even quite probable, but in my opinion he hasn't received the requisite level of coverage needed to justify an article above and beyond WP:YOUNGATH (which is more written for American sports but I think the general principle still applies here.) SportingFlyer T·C 08:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Davidlofgren1996. Young player with ongoing career already with lots of coverage/sources that meet notability imo. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, he's a young player with no senior caps yet, but the coverage found is already enough to warrant an article in my opinion. At worst, draftify. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage is significant. We've made our bed that GNG is the end all be all, so we have no option but to keep.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG isn't the be all end all, though - it's subject to WP:NOT, and we're clearly in a position where WP:YOUNGATH and WP:TOOSOON apply which would keep an article out of mainspace even if GNG is technically met. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete. Fails SUSTAINED and YOUNGATH. Almost everything about his career is speculative.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. The question of whether or not to delete seems to have been renewed twice because there is no clear consensus. WP:NOT says Wikipedia is not a democracy, which implies that it is not just a matter of counting votes. Tottenham Hotspur youngsters Will Lankshear and Josh Keeley had their pages deleted (despite sources) so I do not wish to simply withdraw the proposal. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Sports personalities says “A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor” (without a definition, and other articles seem to suggest making a first-team debut is sufficient) and it is unfortunate that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does not have criteria specific to association football. Perhaps guidelines need revisiting. LenF54 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect its for the closing admin to assess notability not for proponants in the discussion to try and shape the framework for the close Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Atta (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation includes only three people. The only "Mohammed Atta" in this disambiguation is the Egyptian 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Another person, Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta is not even named Mohammed (Mahmoud might have been misread as Mohammed). The only other figure with "Atta" and "Mohammed" in their name is Atta Muhammad Nur. This kind of makes it a WP:ONEOTHER situation: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) Syrikist (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations. Syrikist (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add that Atta Muhammad Nur actually spells his name "Ata Mohammad Noor", not "Atta". (Twitter and Instagram) Syrikist (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What a mess. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason for the disambiguation page is that these people get confused:

Mohamed Atta was a terrorist who crashed a Boeing into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta was a different terrorist who American newspapers confused with Mohamed Atta.^[10]
Atta Muhammad Nur was mujahideen/politician who fought against the communists and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

How names are transliterated into Latin script varies, and is often done inconsistently. In addition, whether the family name is written first or last also varies. The example of Atta Muhammad Nur cited by Syrikist is a good example of both of these: his Instagram ID is "nooratamohammad", and the page says "Ata Mohammad Noor". There is therefore a need for this disambiguation page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Per the source you cited,^[11] the confusion between Mohamed Atta and Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta just existed for a few days and both were confirmed different people within weeks of the 9/11 attacks. The source says "The Boston Globe, which was one of the few newspapers that printed this rumor, issued a correction a few days later and said their original report was "a case of mistaken identity." The Israeli Ministry of Justice stated: "It's not the same person. It's obviously two different men." (November 2001) Thus, I'm pretty sure no one nowadays remains confused between the Egyptian terrorist Mohamed Atta with the American-based terrorist Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta, who isn't even very notable. Secondly, could you cite a source (I personally founded none) in which there is confusion between the Egyptian terrorist Mohamed Atta and and the Afghan general Ata Mohammad Noor/Atta Muhammad Nur? Also the Egyptian terrorist Mohamed Atta is the primary topic, not Mahmoud Atta and Ata Mohammad Noor. Nevertheless, if you believe there is a confusion between the three figures, we can insert a distinguish template on these three articles, rather than an unnecessary disambiguation. Cheers! Syrikist (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sake of preventing confusion regarding which Mohammed Atta is being looked up.TH1980 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What confusion? One of the entries has the names reversed, and even if you consider Mahmoud somehow a Mohammed, there is a clear primary topic, so WP:TWODABS would apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Syrikist and Clarityfiend's comments. Such a poor disambiguation, I don't think this even needs a discussion. OsamusBLQ (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, better handled with hatnotes (WP:ONEOTHER). Atta Muhammad Nur seems like a stretch. Suriname0 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gunther Fehlinger[edit]

If you came here because you saw a tweet about this discussion, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Virtually no sources establishing notability. One of them is a podcast and another is a tweet. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the current lack of sources, but Fehlinger was a key member in the European Democrat Students group in the 1990s (serving as President) and has amassed significant international media attention in Greece, Brazil, and Armenia for his at-times controversial foreign policy statements. AceGothstein (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dismantle this page up into five smaller pages and form Ex-Wikipedia Article. No, but seriously delete. Fehlinger may be a funny character, but he's really not notable and the passing mentions of him in the sources combined do not meet WP:GNG. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly part of the issue with sourcing articles about Fehlinger is that he's offended so many nationalities there are articles about him in too many languages. AceGothstein (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this for now, unless something important comes up with him. Interesting guy, just not too notable. Lucksash (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree. Fehlinger has appeared in multiple mainstream media outlets worldwide for his controversial views, and was at one point a serious internal figure within the European People's Party, serving as head of both its students' wing, European Democratic Students, and as Secretary General of its Union of Small and Medium Enterprises. ShanGuy37 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - my bad for thinking he was only interesting for what he's known for now. Lucksash (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on it further, I'd say keep. I'd consider him notable enough to warrant an article. Lucksash (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Holding these positions doesn't make you notable enough for Wikipedia. If he was the chair of the actual organisation, sure, maybe that would be worth considering, but being chair of an internal party organisation or its youth wing is not notable. Ultimately what's needed for a Wikipedia article is significant coverage in reliable sources, and the current passing mentions of Mr Fehlinger having posted something online do not add up to that. None of the keep votes or claims of notability have attempted to prove this. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is evidently poorly written - the vast majority of sources are tweets by the subject - but I think Fehlinger is notable enough and has had a reasonable amount of coverage as an economist and personality. Keep would be my vote. Burger1018 (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Gunther may not be the most important person but he is definitely notable enough to have on Wikipedia. Especially as a rather well known online personality. 156.213.150.165 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d agree honestly, it seems to me that outside his online presence, which is basically just (hawkish) twitter (which has partly led people to come here and say "i want to keep the article") he isn’t really someone notable enough to have a wikipedia article. The sources certainly show that, and the fact that he had to call on people to keep his wikipedia page up (in a tweet) demonstrates that his online presence is really simply limited to twitter, if he had the notability needed for wikipedia, I believe that it’d be unlikely that he’d even have to do this, since the article wouldn’t be put up for deletion. If I counted correctly, 27 of the 42 sources are his own tweets, and a few of the other sources are written by the subject of the article. I really do not think this qualifies as any sort of notability, and I do agree that it should realistically be deleted, unless better non primary sources are put forward. This is basically becoming a popularity contest, which I think puts shame on wikipedia as an encyclopaedia.

Tl;dr: He (in my opinion) does not reach the notability needed to have a wikipedia page, nor does he have sources to demonstrate that. Lexoomfie (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't say he's some nobody - he has the attention of mainstream media and has held/holds some notable positions.

Solblaze (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable person know for the numerous ngo's of which he is part about Nato, EU and the support for Ukraine. He has already been interviewd by many tv channels from different european countries. 2001:818:E812:3400:204C:8810:40C3:9C6C (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fehlinger and his activism/commentary have been covered in multiple sources over the years. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough for a article, (Text removed) AvailableViking (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't fulfill general notability guideline. The sources cited seem to mention him in relation to misinformation on social media. There is a lack of coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. Indeed most of the citations are tweets made by the subject of the article. Gust Justice (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep his Wikipedia site. Regardless how awful might be some of his posts on his social media accounts, this should absolutely not be the reason to remove his Wikipedia site, as there have been an infinitely worse posts, statements, and disgusting insults posted by Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, Matt Walsh, Rudy Giuliani, etc., yet none of them were discussed to be removed from the Wikipedia even though they held much more power than Fehlinger while they supported even very serious crimes (war, ethnic cleansing, attrocities, etc.) 87.67.207.62 (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This represents an entirely misinformed understanding of what Wikipedia is. Toffeenix (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the subject of this article, and the examples you mention, is that those people very clearly have been covered in reliable sources. I am not saying that social media activity can't be the subject of an article. What I am saying however is that an individual's personal activity on social media does not constitute a source for the purposes of determining whether an article about that individual is notable. Show me significant coverage of Gunther Fehlinger in reliable sources that are independent of the him. That would show that the subject of the article notable. Gust Justice (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closer: The subject is repeatedly posting on his own Twitter page to canvas. I already slapped a notice on top, but I just want to post the actual tweet link. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person is generally irrelevant and an ex-twitter now X attention seeker. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the general notability guideline. There is hardly any coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. His tweets make up about two-thirds of the total citations. Add to that some websites of organizations he was a member of, and an opinion article he authored himself, and there is next to nothing left. My impression is that this isn't a sourcing problem, but reflects the actual prominence of the subject right now. Daydreamers (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number Eight (Battlestar Galactica)[edit]

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

The article has no secondary sources, and my BEFORE did not find much. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. This article is unsourced, so regardless of its notability, its best off redirecting to the list right now. No prejudice towards its recreation if anyone can find sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per improvements made since nomination. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. AGFing on BEFORE, the abysmal state of the article (practically unreferenced plot summary) is self-evident. Redirect, preserve history, and hope one day sources appear and this can be restored. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per the source found by User:Vanamonde93. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recommend remedial BEFORE training for nominator. Seriously, if you haven't checked scholar, you really haven't done a before... especially on a sci-fi character: Academics are geeks and like writing about such things:
Techno-butterfly: Orientalism old and new in Battlestar Galactica Paywalled, and I don't have access.

Battlestar Galactica and International Relations, Nicholas Kiersey and Ivar Neumann, ISBN 978-0415632812, p. 124, possibly more.

Caeners, T. (2008). Humanity’s Scarred Children: The Cylons’ Oedipal Dilemma in “Battlestar Galactica.” Extrapolation (University of Texas at Brownsville), 49(3), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.3828/extr.2008.49.3.3 Once again, I don't have access to this.

Here's some of what I could grab via Google Books from Space and Time: Essays on Visions of History in Science Fiction and Fantasy Television by David Wright and Allan Austin, ISBN 978-0786436644
"Sharon Agathon is a significant incarnation of number Eight among the Cylon humanoid models. Her character repeatedly challenges the presumptions of what it means to be human in this world, often very directly in her confrontations or conversations with Bill Adama. Although another copy of Number Eight, Boomer, attempted to assassinate Adama at the end of season one, this version, who bonded with her co-pilot, Karl Agathon, while on the run on Caprica, becomes pregnant and throws her lot in with Colonial humanity. This version of Number Eight bears the first known human/Cylon child and also becomes a close confidante of Bill Adama over the course of seasons two and three. Although ostensibly a prisoner of the Colonials, once she engineers an escape from the ruins of Caprica for herself, her lover, and Thrace, Sharon Agathon repeatedly demonstrates her trustworthiness so that she is eventually made an officer by Adama and given the call-sign Athena.

"Adama's protectiveness towards this copy of Number Eight that he has come to know further blurs the barriers between Colonial and Cylon. For the first time, we see the suggestion of a concept of reciprocal accommodation between Colonials and Cylons on more than a personal level. How ever, this accommodation is based upon mutual respect emerging between..." You get the point.

So, those are just the top four Google Scholar hits on this topic as picked from the default search template--I didn't have to search with other words or remove the words in parentheses... these are lying around for anyone to see... as long as they take even a perfunctory look at Google Scholar. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for forgetting to check Google Scholar. I will try not to make that mistake again. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted--can you access any of the three scholar refs I cannot, perhaps through the Wikipedia Library? I have access through two university libraries, but neither has access to those journals. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot access them, how is this different from WP:GOOGLEHITS/WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES?? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/Redirect~~ WP:BEFORE shows either trivial mentions or plot recaps. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to write a meaningful section about its reception or analysis. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Striking !vote, since editor has entered an amended !vote below. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. The topic is unquestionably notable; google scholar has at least a dozen reasonable hits, of which I'm particularly struck by this, which is an entire journal article analysing the character: there's also the first source mentioned above that has a lot of material. This is also one of the primary characters of the show (well within the top 10 by screen time); as such, I think improvement is more likely if we actually have an article rather than a redirect: and while the current content is bad, it isn't material that would be out of place in a fleshed out article, so I don't see an urgent need to remove it. The !vote immediately above mine is way off the mark; the other redirect opinions are, at least, based in fact. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find. I've added the source to the article. @Zxcvbnm, @Shooterwalker, in case they'd like to reconsider their votes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not reached the WP:HEY standard for me yet, especially given it could be discussed in a section. Sources may exist, but right now there is no reason to split. It should be improved in the character list and later split off if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Now greatly expanded. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the effort put into improving the article, I am changing to weak keep. It still only has a couple of sources, but it is in a significantly better state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per sources added to the article. I'd appreciate more being added, but for now, this should be enough to demonstrate notability and keep it around. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources demonstrate notability and because of the improvements made. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I earlier supported delete/redirect, but there is enough content here that it should be WP:PRESERVEd somewhere. A merge discussion can take place, if anyone believes it's better to clean it up than to expand it. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That is "Do Not Delete". There is not a clear consensus that this should be a separate article rather than covered as part of the list at List of generation VI Pokémon, but further discussion can also take place at the article talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Greninja[edit]

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

Greninja has obviously been mentioned across wide sources in some way, but the depth and relevance of those sources as significant coverage is the issue. Article's receotion were mostly filled with listicle-type articles. Unfortunately, valnet source like this [12] doesn't help its notability, an IGN source, which seemed to be looking good (title alone) of the impact, but turns out to only be a sentence in another listicle-type article, while this one [13] just talks about Greninja winning the poll, that's it (user-based fan polls doesn't add substance in establishing notability). Others were obvious trivia. Def having a hard time to find more usable coverage per BEFORE. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The current sourcing in the article is lackluster. However, there appear to be multiple SIGCOV available. First of all, the Game Informer article is entirely about Greninja. Second of all this Kotaku article has a section talking about Greninja's importance for the last 2 paragraphs. This Hardcore Gamer article has a decent analysis of the three final evolutions of X and Y starters, including Greninja. Because of Greninja's unusual prominence in the anime and Smash, I think it is probably squeaking past notability. I would argue this is a WP:NOTCLEANUP situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Honestly, Zxcvbnm’s source analysis actually supports my rationales for deletion. The Game Informer article, probably the best and most focused source on Greninja itself, is about him as a playable character in one specific fighting game, not as a whole. The other two mentions I don’t feel rise to the level of actually significant coverage because they don’t focus on Greninja, and per my essay, I feel the only reason an article exists of this now is because the text is fluffed and truly significant coverage isn’t there to support a well-written article. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there’s a better alternative to deletion here. Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon, for the same rationale. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect Eh, I mean there are supported partials in the article. Most add up to trivia as the nom has pointed out. However, the List of generation VI Pokémon Greninja section provides a lot of details to it, so that's more appropriate than outright deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources from Zx. I agree that what's there is rather weak, but I think it's enough to justify a separate split, if barely. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources from User:Zxcvbnm above, etc. Seems to have enough notability and coverage in reliable secondary sources, just needs a little bit of improving. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Greninja has been covered in some level of detail by reliable sources as demonstrated by Zxcvbnm. Also, I think the fact that the Pokémon has topped multiple fan polls and gotten media coverage for doing so (including from USA Today) is significant. At the very least, this is something that distinguishes Greninja from most other Pokemon. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject seems to currently have some decent sources that help the subject meet general notability, but compared to other well-established Pokémon monster articles the Greninja’s source variety is lacking. I’m mainly looking at the Reception section for general notability, and the content and flow there seems passable, yet deserving of further improvements. We can’t just ditch an entire article just because it barely meets general notability. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources demonstrate notability, especially in the reception section, which is the most important as it's the least in universe section. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect I'm really confused that people are !voting keep after reviewing the sources. This Game Informer article is almost devoid of usable coverage. It reads: "Earlier in the week, I played Super Smash Bros. with Little Mac, but he proved not to be my best character. But the Nintendo frantic character fighter is so entertaining that I just couldn't stay away, and I went back to the well to find another fighter that would fit more with my style. I landed on the character Greninja. I'm clearly really good with him; I'm currently undefeated with him." The article goes on giving a WP:GAMEGUIDE style description of all its abilities, and concludes with "Just don't try to play against me while I'm playing Greninja; I'm undefeated (so if you're good I'll probably pick a different character for fear of breaking my streak)." This isn't significant coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're looking at the wrong part of the article. The article gives this bit towards its start, namely, "The final evolved form of Froakie fits right into the rest of the Super Smash Bros. cast, because he's a fun and fast character with a lot of great moves." which does describe the character's role in game, and sure, the author gets cocky, but the author clearly is enjoying the Greninja character and is giving him a positive review for his appearance in the game. I'd say it qualifies.

I would also state that the other sources we have are pretty solid as well. Just going by Zx's sources, the Kotaku article gives some coverage discussing the author's thoughts on Greninja's appearance in the Pokemon anime. "Ash had one as part of his team, which had the bonkers ability to Battle Bond—which is to say, it could merge its consciousness with Ash to form the imaginatively named Ash-Greninja, a half-Ash, half-Pokémon monstrosity that should have been killed with fire." and "But will it appear during Ash’s final 11-episode run on the anime? I honestly couldn’t care less."

The Hardcore Gamer article gives some analysis of the character in competitive (Which isn't too helpful for Wikipedia) but it does give some personal thoughts on the character. As Zx said, it's a bit brief, but it is decent coverage on the subject.

As for other sources already in the article, some examples of decent sourcing include Greninja's popularity poll ranking being covered by several sources, which gives significant coverage of the subject. The Ibtimes article does give a good blurb on Greninja, "Picking from the latest collection of pocket monsters was tricky – proving that Game Freak really stuck gold here. No debate was required for Greninja however, who has proved an instant classic."

I haven't performed a personal search for sources myself, but I definitely concur with editors that it's a bit weak compared to say, Snorlax. In any case though, I'd say it's just barely meeting the requirements for notability and significant coverage here, just from what's in the article alone. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I’d like to add that Greninja’s appearance in the anime has gotten media coverage [14]. While we’ve been focusing on the games, there’s another part of the franchise that Greninja has racked up multiple sources in. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources found by Zxcvbnm. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It has not been edited in three years prior to the AfD, so draftifications seems more likely to just be a G13. As such, I am not draftifying it, but if someone wants to work on it, Im happy to provide it in draft . 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. Star Mississippi 01:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Fonda[edit]

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

Not notable person, no independent relevant coverage. Edit.pdf (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft This deserves more research, in order to get better secondary sources. These don't currently exist, so I believe it must be deleted for now. PickleG13 (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I would actually like to see a stub for The Literate Earth Project allowed instead as it has a few references such as https://www.proquest.com/docview/1534166536/1248D9073E0E4E47PQ/11, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2620225139/1248D9073E0E4E47PQ/1, and https://www.proquest.com/docview/1830522095/1248D9073E0E4E47PQ/9 to support. - Indefensible (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and none appears likely to come about. Star Mississippi 01:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Living Wage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Universal Living Wage (ULW)

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

Since the last AfD, which was closed as keep, pretty much nothing was done to clean up the article. I know deletion is not cleanup, but this seems like a case where TNT may be needed. Of note is that I had tagged the article for speedy deletion for G5 in November 2022, but removed it after I was told G5 doesn't apply to pages others have edited. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the nominator's frustration, but there is not a valid policy rationale for an AfD. It falls better under WP:DEADLINE. I think the issue is lack of attention. The article as written is isn't unencylopaedic or even wrong; it's just bad. A reader coming to this article is not going to be misled or even misinformed. The subject clears WP:GNG just in journal mentions alone. The article is horribly sourced, but sources are out there (starting around 2007 with some as late as 2022, clearing WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED) even if they're not cited (yet) in the article. WP:TNT doesn't really make sense because there is no apparent WP:PAID problem or other massive contention over the content that makes consensus and value impossible. It's tagged appropriately to warn the reader and attract editors. That's what we are supposed to have. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd send it to draft, it needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it could probably be merged somewhere as there are lots of similar topics, but I haven't identified an obvious target. Certainly don't draftify a 3-year-old article whose creator can't edit. That's just deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find any sources that don't just mention this campaign/concept tangentially. The sources the article currently has aren't sufficient, with some being blog-like. If there are good sources about this topic, I'm happy to look at the, but since this article has been AfD'd a week ago, this hasn't happened. Cortador (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Last1in: Could you give some examples of the sources you're finding? I'm struggling to find any. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My WP:THREE:

[15] Annoyingly, this one has a wonderful biblio, but I can't get it to open any more.

[16] This is core info as a secondary analysis of the Troxell concept versus similar ones

[17] This has info on the formulation itself.

Please note that I don't think the article (or sourcing) is good, nor do I think there is a lot of info out there. Even as written, though, I feel that the article passes WP:GNG and the subject is absolutely encyclopaedic. It is the kind of topic that people come to Wikipedia to understand for that very reason: It is infrequently mentioned and rarely explained in detail. Wikipedia is not improved by deleting this article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your third source tips the balance to a Keep for me, alongside the news sources already present in the article. I do think in the long run that the article could probably be merged into Living wage#Living wage movements, but for now I'm satisified that the topic passes GNG. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite being widely linked, the arguments favoring deletion are backed by notability guidelines. ✗plicit 00:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atwood Magazine[edit]

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

No viable third-party coverage. Article reads like a resume with primary sourcing including own website, and vague Webby Award win is not enough to establish notability. First page of search results included Spotify, SoundCloud, LinkedIn and so on. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews is simply hits to the magazine. They have a flickr group (remember those?), with 200 members. I don't think this is notable. There is nothing outside of their own social media sites. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A brief discussion on Muck Rack, not sure if they scam people or not. Feels PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a source linked from hundreds of Wikipedia pages. Sources about sources are rare and insanely freaking hard to find (all you get when looking is the publication itself, after all), but there is value in keeping the article of an often-used source so readers can get a basic background of the publication that is cited. Outside of Wikipedia, it is also cited in a couple dozen scholarly books, including those by Taylor & Francis and McFarland, so it is at least somewhat reputable and notable under WP:NPERIODICAL, even if that is an essay. I will continue to look for sources about the magazine, but I just figured I would jot down my thoughts on the matter first. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please share the sources you've found. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of where it's cited? Sure, here's some: The Popular and the Sacred in Music, Popular Culture and Social Change (Taylor & Francis), Under the Influence of Classic Country (McFarland), various news articles including those by People, Insider, and Columbia Daily Tribune. I will always stand by that a periodical is notable when cited often, regardless of the actual coverage of the periodical itself. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but those are all trivial coverage or name drops of the magazine. People, Insider and the Daily Tribune in particular are not helpful as the articles are about completely different things and only have a line mention this magazine. Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as well for the reasons outlined by user Why? I Ask above. Would also add the reasoning in Wikipedia:Notability (media) as a reference point as well. The media does not often report on itself. In that context winning a significant national award (which a Webby is, if not quite a Pulitzer) serves as an independent and credible validation of this as a non-trivial source of media content. WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a hard one which will be difficult to untangle manually. There are indeed many WP articles that link to this one, but they all read essentially: "Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine wrote that..." That such a statement was made in over one hundred pop music articles looks suspiciously like PROMO. Here's an example:

"while Rolling Stone's Jon Dolan praised its "moody sheen", writing this creates "an enjoyable balance of desire and distraction".[56] Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine praised "Somebody Else" for "maintain[ing] an upbeat but hollow melody while being danceable all the while".

I haven't been able to determine if there is a single or a small set of editors who have added these as it is difficult to find a specific edit (is there a way to do that?). I also note that the Webby is NOT a significant award - you can nominate your web site for it and pay a fee, and an honorable mention appears to just mean that you had done that. I am far from convinced by these "strong keep" !votes and would like to hear what they are based on. I'll cycle back. Lamona (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt this is being added as a source to music articles simply to boost the magazine. Rather, I voted keep because many semi-niche, but also semi-popular-in-their-field periodicals (from research journals to magazines) deserve to have something where Wikipedians can gauge what the source actually is, especially if it's on such an impact level as this magazine. Periodicals are like professors on Wikipedia. No one writes about them. What is important is what they write. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base your doubts on? Are you familiar with the magazine? Do you know how we can determine its status in the niche? I think we need more to go on than gut feelings. Lamona (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that to be an “honoree” for a Webby you are chosen by an actual human judging process. The FAQ there seems to back this up but if I am mistaken on that I’d change my vote to weak keep. With that said I still stand by the multiple Wikipedia essays arguing that media outlets need to be judged in context, which is that they are notable by being cited more than being profiled. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By "being cited" are you referring to appearing on Wikipedia pages? Because I didn't find citations outside of Wikipedia (at least, not ones that are substantial). If you are referring to the large number of WP articles that link to this one, that's an interesting question. The page on Reliable Sources has a section relating to user-generated content that reads: "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Discogs, ... and Wikipedia (self referencing)." It also says: "In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source." My feeling is that the fact that there are wikipedia articles that link to this article is not a "reliable source" argument for keeping this article.

BTW, the Webbys are not well thought of. See Slate. And the Webby site says: " Less than 20% of entries in the Webby Awards are deemed Official Honorees. With thousands of entries in the Webby Awards each year, being selected as an Official Honoree a notable achievement." An "honor" that goes to 20% of the entries is a pretty low bar, but definitely not something that would, on its own, establish notability.

Delete unless some sources are found that give evidence of notability. If deleted there is the big task of removing the link from a large number of articles. I hope there's a bot for that. Lamona (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion of the available source material on this subject would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some editor can find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of this online magazine. Winning a pay-to-play award like a Webby is not evidence of notability. Being cited or mentioned on Wikipedia is not evidence of notability. The concept of a "reliable source" is not the same as a "notable source". Some notable sources are utterly unreliable, such as the Weekly World News and Der Stürmer, and I could go on and on. On the other hand, many reliable sources are not notable, like local historical society publications for example. Or minor online publications like this one. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage can be found from reliable sources. A BEFORE search shows mostly primary sources, and a lot of reliable sources are not notable. The article is also promotional. FlutterDash344 (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely per cullen. My own search for sources hasn't returned enough either citations about the subject or citations of the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Thomson (actress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The actress possibly lacks notability to have her own article. The article itself has ~~zero~~ only 3 (edited after nomination as noticed it has 3 references, albeit none possibly pass the notability guidance) references and not much can be found about her on the web. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and New Zealand. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's most known for her roles in the Power Rangers, yet the text doesn't discuss them and the characters are secondary (from what I see). I'm not showing ACTOR as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This lazy !vote is a strawman. Makes a claim that is not true so they can knock it down. Totally dismisses her biggest roles. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Comment~~. If anything gets her over the threshold for WP:NACTOR, it'd be her roles in Shortland Street and The Moe Show; the former is a recurring role in a very significant show, the latter is a lead role in a less significant show. I've added some additional sources but still not convinced she meets WP:SIGCOV. Staying on the fence for now, but will keep thinking on it. Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more digging (see my amends to the article) and am updating my vote to keep. Significant roles in multiple notable productions, so presumption is in favour of notability, and there is a reasonable amount of coverage in reliable sources about her roles in Shortland Street and The Moe Show. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes NACTOR with her roles in Shortland Street and The Moe Show. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets NACTOR criteria 1 WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion of the available source material, and its sufficiency (or lack thereof) for an article, would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subjects meets WP:NACTOR and the references in the article support this. - Indefensible (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Courts of the Republic of Ireland. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Family Court (Ireland)[edit]

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

Unsourced and tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. Could be merged.... somewhere... if sources are found. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Ireland. UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I haven't yet completed a full WP:BEFORE sources/notability check, at first glance (and as noted by the nom themselves), I'm not sure that outright deletion is likely to be an appropriate outcome here. (Perhaps a retitle, to cover family law in Ireland generally, including seemingly impending reform, which has received relatively significant coverage [18][19][20], might be in order). Otherwise, at the very least (and noting that Circuit Family Court already redirects to Circuit Court (Ireland)#Circuit Family Court), perhaps something similar could be done here. Which would also be consistent with some of the other members of the related DAB title... In the meantime at least. Guliolopez (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Courts of the Republic of Ireland. This article on the fringes of notability would be better off as part of the proposed target, which currently is only at 1,346 words (see WP:SIZESPLIT). Per WP:CRYSTAL, this court has been going through its birth pangs for 50 years, and still seems to not exist yet as a distinct entity. StonyBrook _babble 21:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above. Additional discussion of the proposed merge target (or of course, of any other views) would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. ✗plicit 00:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC Dibiyapur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last AfD, schools are no longer inherently notable as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This article fails WP:NSCHOOL and only primary sources are provided. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOLS. I can not find any relevant WP:SIGCOV. Listings and passing mentions are not enough. The Banner talk 13:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as ATD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.Lankanrhino (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus to Delete this article. No penalty for creating a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles O. Beebe[edit]

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

Nominating this for deletion as the first of a possible group at Template talk:List of Sea Captains and Pilots. The only claim to notability made here is that he did the same job as his father and grandfather did. Notability is not inherited, and being a maritime pilot is not a job that carries any inherent notability. Melcous (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. Kpg jhp jm 05:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, United States of America, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact I think it would qualify for speedy deleion under criterion A7. The article says "He is best known for coming from a multigenerational family of Sandy Hook pilots", and nothing in either the article or its references suggests that he has any claim to significance. JBW (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suggest it though. If A7'd, it could end up being re-created as early as minutes later and phrased differently to meet A7 and it would likely be denied G4. G4 coverage is only offered for articles that have gone through the full AfD reaching a firm "delete". Graywalls (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wrote the article on Charles O. Beebe, who stood as a notable figure in 19th-century America, renowned for his integral role as a Sandy Hook Pilot. His lineage as the scion of the esteemed Beebe family, steeped in the tradition of guiding ships through the Sandy Hook waters, underscored his prominence. Beebe further distinguished himself as a World War I veteran, where he honed his maritime skills while serving aboard the pilot boat Trenton, No. 4. His legacy remains indelibly marked by his unwavering commitment to piloting, ensuring safe navigation for countless vessels. Moreover, it is worth noting that this article stands as a model of reliability and adherence to Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines, boasting a commendable nine reputable sources, exemplifying adherence to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. In addition, there are 119,436 articles lacking sources, (see Category:Articles lacking sources), however the Beebe article has nine WP:RS and follows the WP:N guidelines. What's the reason for singling me out? Greg Henderson (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a kind of comment which frequently comes from new editors who are not yet acquainted with how Wikipedia works. However, coming from an editor who has been here for almost 17 years, and who has made well over 17,000 edits, it is astonishing. Nothing that you say has anything to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the existence of other articles lacking sources is not a reason for keeping this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). JBW (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GREG , AfD them if you believe they fail to meet GNG Graywalls (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG with the coverage in a routine local source and non-independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For WP:BASIC #1, There are multiple independent sources included in the article that combined demonstrate notability. Please remember that notability is problematic with 19th century Sandy Hook pilots as some of the key references are offline. Looping in @A. B.: per our previous discussion on maritime pilots. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1: Genealogy book (by a non-independent relative) that opens up to a page on James Dean Monroe Beebe that lists a "Charles" among his children but offers zero other context to identify this person as the "Charles Beebe" in question. This source, which again is limited to his name in a list on page 176 and his own directory entry that literally only states he was the son of [JDMB] and his birthdate, is being cited to support the claims that Charles married certain people and that he apparently had a child when he was 14 years old.

Sources 2 & 3: Obituaries for his father in two local newspapers, Asbury Park Press and The Daily Record, that mention Charles in passing and anyway are unlikely to be independent.

Source 4: Utterly routine local-interest news from the same paper as #3.

Source 5: Non-independent local obituary in the same paper as #3.

Source 6: Non-independent local Elks Lodge announcement in the same paper as #3 that they are putting on a dinner to honor Charles Beebe.

Source 7: Non-independent obituary for his wife in the same paper as #3.

These are indisputably not enough for even the very low bar of NBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, but there may be some contents suitable for merging into Sandy Hook Pilots. This man was admirable, and he was important in his profession, but that's not the same thing as Notability for a person. It's a very nicely written (and sourced) account of this man's life, but the sources (obituaries, genealogy, and a couple of garden-variety local news stories) do not constitute a basis for notability. PS - It occurred to me that this article would be regarded as a worthwhile contribution at WikiTree.com, and I see that there's a profile for this man there that would be greatly enhanced by the addition of this article's content. Orlady (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable for a stand-alone article, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable pilot. Not everyone whose name is mentioned during their lifetime is wiki-notable. The excellent source analysis by JoelleJay clears up any question. Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James D. M. Beebe (his father) and add a brief sentence mention of Charles in the target page. Not notable per source analysis provided by JoelleJay, and only claim to significance is affiliation with his father and grandfather. Frank Anchor 15:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good solution. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with your suggestion Frank Anchor is that I'm not sure the father is notable either, or even the grandfather. Melcous (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Melcous, the other day I looked at these articles, and I too question the notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's disheartening to hear that there are efforts to delete articles about notable 19th-century Sandy Hook pilots. These articles can certainly be enhanced and should have a place in any encyclopedia dedicated to disseminating valuable information. Efforts to improve and preserve the historical contributions of such individuals should be encouraged and supported. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you continuing to call these people notable is not the same as demonstrating that they meet wikipedia's notability criteria. Stop with the overwrought commentary and focus on that. Melcous (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Melcous: this is a reasonable concern, and the father and grandfather can be brought to their own separate AFDs. Another possible redirect target is Sandy Hook Pilots (Beebe isn't named in that article, but that is an easily WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem). I oppose an outright delete as Beebe and his relatives are reasonable search terms. Frank Anchor

@Frank Anchor re-directs can always be created very easily at any time. Graywalls (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now is as good of a time as any in order to preserve the edit history of the article. Frank Anchor 19:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fully disagree with preserving edit history of this article. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be good reasons for creating a redirect, but redirecting in order to keep the edit history of an article for which there is a consensus to delete is not one of them. JBW (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belleville, North Dakota[edit]

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

I'm finding no evidence that this was anything other than a 4th class post office in someone's house. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Dakota and Geography. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information found, nothing to suggest notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Derna, Libya. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulmenam Al-Ghaithi[edit]

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

Non-notable. I was unable to find any reliable sources that are directly about him, only passing mentions in news articles about the floods. He certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. FatCat96 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FatCat96 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is the mayor of a state capital city in Libya. Has anyone WP:BEFORED Libyan sources to see if there's anything there? If all we have is international flooding coverage he probably fails WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better. As always, mayors (even mayors of capital cities) are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and pass NPOL #2 only if they're the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to enable us to write a substantial article about the mayor's political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what's on offer here: "got quoted in media during floods" is not sufficient in and of itself, and the sources aren't about him in any non-trivial way. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as the mayor of the city worst affected by one of the deadliest typhoons in recent history I thought that notable. I started the page because I thought it would be beneficial because Libya is so underrepresented on Wikipedia. I've also noticed that most "notable mayors" are from western countries because media coverage is more prevalent. Instead of deletion it should redirect back to Derna, Libya. - Moondragon21 (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belerica Oquendo[edit]

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

The subject has played college soccer and appeared for the Puerto Rico women's national football team as a teen. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Puerto Rico, and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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