Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 15	September 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish–Norwegian War[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:ONEOTHER. Furthermore one of them is not even called Swedish–Norwegian War. Lightoil (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Disambiguations, Norway, and Sweden. Lightoil (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Swedish-Norwegian wars. The list should also make the point that Norway and Denmark were united in 1380-1814, so that Norway was involved in Danish wars with Sweden (of which there were many) after the dissolution of the union of Kalmar (when all three states were united in 1397-1523), with a link to the article on Dano-Swedish wars. (I am not quite sure that I have my history of the union of Kalmar quite right, as that article lists some wars during it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "NONEOTHER". Only one valid entry, so what's there to disambiguate? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also move Swedish–Norwegian War (1814) here afterward. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 11 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!} 23:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with Swedish–Norwegian War (1814) per above. - Indefensible (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indefensible, I don't understand your recommendation to "replace". Do you mean move Swedish–Norwegian War (1814) to Swedish–Norwegian War? Because I don't understand what you mean by "delete and replace". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, recommend article move after deletion as Clarityfiend suggested, although it can be proposed on the article's talk page. - Indefensible (talk) 05:59, 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!} 01:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Rasooli[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability, never achieved anything special and never played for the national team. was deleted once and nothing changed since then. no reason to be notable now. Sports2021 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you make false claims?

This person has played in the national youth team.

I have put many sources for all my writings you can see.

In 2017, together with the national youth team, they participated in the competition as an adult team and won the championship.

In 2018, Mahmood Rasooli became the vice champion of Asia with the national youth team. (You can check the BBC Persian site, which is listed in the sources of my article, to confirm my writing.)

I think you have a personal view on the matter. Please re-check all my links that I have put in the article and you will realize that this person was in the national team.

I repeat again that I have put reliable sources for all my writings. Please other editors check my article. AbolfazlEbrahimi14 (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this looks very familiar like what you wrote with your other account here you can't use a sock account to re-create the article which was deleted before. no need to repeat myself all my reasons are already here. Sports2021 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another account?

I don't have another account and I didn't write the previous article.

Your words are not convincing.

All my posts have a source and you can see the achievements of this person from there. AbolfazlEbrahimi14 (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes sure. next time you created another account which I'm sure you will, try to write in a different way. that was too obvious. Sports2021 (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. look like COI Worldiswide (talk) 03:38, 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!} 23:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still nothing notable achieved since the August 21st deletion, valiant effort though. Same reasons for deletion as last time. Should SALT. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my article again and see my references. AbolfazlEbrahimi14 (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read my article and check my sources before commenting. This person is a volleyball player who has an Asian championship in his career.AbolfazlEbrahimi14 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As of now, sources only attest that such a guy existed and played volleyball in 2016–2017 (but not afterwards). However, WP:ITEXISTS is not a sufficient criterion to establish encyclopaedic notability, in sports or elsewhere. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article should be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G4. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I should note, for the record, that the creator tried to solicit participation in this discussion from me and at least eight other editors — but since I'm not landing on their side of the argument, I don't feel honor-bound to refrain from participating. The problem here is that pretty much right across the board, the creator used sources that glancingly namecheck Mahmood Rasooli as a person who exists, but are not about him in any non-trivial sense — but that's not the kind of sourcing it takes to pass WP:GNG, and what we need to see is sources that have Mahmood Rasooli as a primary subject.
Being on a team at the youth level is further not sufficient for notability in and of itself — in sports, "inherent" notability that overrides bad sourcing is an option only at the very top professional levels of play (e.g. the NHL in hockey, the NBA in basketball, the national team in volleyball, etc.), and never extends all the way down the line to the juniors. So in addition to the sourcing not getting him over GNG in the first place, the article doesn't even say anything about him that would grant him any sort of exemption from having to pass GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Let's ignite the WP:REFBOMB with WP:TNT as there isn't a shred of WP:GNG in here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:SIGCOV. – Meena • 14:31, 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. ✗plicit 13:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Binary priority list[edit]

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

Little indication of notability beyond a couple of research papers. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 16:35, 26 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!} 22:22, 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!} 22:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the topic of using X method of sorting to manage backlog in industry Y would likely be a case of WP:CROSSCAT. PaulT2022 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion as previously PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of passing GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:55, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Maizels[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. The notability tag has been on this page for 10 years, and since then, he doesn't seem to have grown notable at all (I performed the preliminary search, nothing covering this individual in depth). The article is also written like it's meant to advertise the work of this individual, rather than cover an actually notable individual. Jaguarnik (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Raw Vision magazine. This person isn't notable; all coverage relates to his involvement with the magazine [1], [2], [3]. It's always John from the magazine, never anything about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Visual arts, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WL Ebsco search appears to show at least one mainstream review of his book Raw Creation: Outsider Art and Beyond in The Atlantic (Adams, Phoebe-Lou. Atlantic. Nov96, Vol. 278 Issue 5, p121-122.) and Proquest is coming up with a short review of L'Art Brut in Le Monde (L'ART BRUT, de John Maizels Le Monde; Paris. 05 Dec 2003: 3.), so possible notability as an author, if a couple of other reviews could be found? At very least could be redirected, retaining history, so that if someone does uncover sufficient book reviews &c it can be reconstructed. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:33, 7 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 Redirect to Raw Vision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 9 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!} 23:00, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Urban Kitchen[edit]

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

Beyond this coverage in the Boston Globe and winning a food blog competition 13 years ago, I cannot find enough reliable secondary coverage beyond passing mentions which marks this blog as notable. It should be noted that this article has been marked for deletion for 12 years! pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Websites. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two references are still "multiple". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Subject has good enough sourcing in the article to pass WP:GNG. As Eastmain noted, the subject has multiple pieces of significant coverage. User:Let'srun 19:41, 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!} 22:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Popular local blog, but hasn't received any attention from sources outside that local area (and not very much locally, either, apart from the Globe and a local award, which don't usually count for much in terms of notability). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator, Eastmain, and User:Let'srun. They state that there are multiple SIGCOV sources. Then why did the nominator go ahead and nominate anyway? It's NOT the case that we lack AfDs! gidonb (talk) 07:23, 12 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!} 23:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it was also featured on a public radio segment a decade ago [4]. I think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If not the blog, the lady that runs it seems notable, she's gotten some coverage [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some additional coverage: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2600523482/67C55DCEF3C34D01PQ/2. - Indefensible (talk) 04:34, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bern, California[edit]

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

Non-notable location that fails WP:GEOLAND. No information about this site available except the fact that there was once a post office there, which is not an indicator of notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This locale is only notable at a local level (that is, as a piece of local history).TH1980 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete Even back in the 1910s this was a single house. It was probably just a fourth class post office; it fact the label disappears from the maps for over a half-century until it reappears, presumably re-added from GNIS. Mangoe (talk) 04:32, 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 merge‎ to Flindt Landing Station. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flindt Landing[edit]

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

Duplicate of Flindt Landing station. I would have boldly redirected, however it was recently deprodded based on the existence of sources for the VIA Rail station and a nearby camp. –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Flindt Landing station. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Flindt Landing station. Suggest a lead sentence for the merged article of "Flindt Landing railway station is a railway point REFERENCE using {{CGNDB}} with CGNDB parameter FBEJH and railway station etc." --papageno (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Before agreeing with merge or redirect, what is the notability for an article of Flindt Landing station? It appears to be a train station where one can alight to camp and go fishing in the wilds. Is that suitable for an encylopaedic article? Wouldn't that be better included in a more general article? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty marginal but its better than Flindt Landing, if it turns out not to be notable then we can just continue to roll the snowball. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 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!} 22:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanaël Hlemu[edit]

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

The subject has appeared for the New Caledonia national football team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - played one game for a minor nation and best coverage I can find is a squad list mention at Oceania Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 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 redirect‎ to Algoma Central Railway#Railway points and sidings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boon, Ontario[edit]

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

Non-notable railway point. –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND. Unable to find any sources to support this was a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This place on the Algoma Central is not notable unto itself (though it could, perhaps, be mentioned somewhere in the article about the railroad).TH1980 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, like Magnolia677 I am unable to locate any sources which would indicate notability Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Algoma Central Railway#Rail sidings. The section already existed and probably contains the railway points on the line—though not Boon. I have added in Boon along with a few details from this article. --papageno (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (ETA: or redirect) - Fails WP:GEOLAND. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Algoma Central Railway#Railway points and sidings. Redirect should remain because many maps will show this as a place, meaning it is a very likely search term. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Algoma Central Railway#Railway points and sidings as WP:ATD: the subject fails WP:GEOLAND so it does not deserve its own article, but it is still a possible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Nom) - I'm not vehemently opposed to the idea, but we've deleted hundreds of rail sidings that appear in maps/databases and I don't think I've ever seen one redirected to the railroad unless it has some special significance. Is there something about Boon that merits a redirect or is it possible that the "railway point" nomenclature makes it sound more notable than it actually is? –dlthewave ☎ 21:43, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Axyom[edit]

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

Unreferenced. No evidence of notability Paul W (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:NCORP. The article creator claims that this is a real company that serves Switzerland but fails to provide any significant coverage of the company from independent sources nor could I find any in my own Swiss source searches. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unreferenced article (no more than a listing) about a new company, moved into mainspace by the WP:SPA editor. Searches find various similarly-named products, but not the coverage about the present company / product needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Talk pages indicate that there had been a speedy-deletion nomination (which seems to me a suitable process in the circumstances) through page-curation, but the article's page history doesn't show a CSD tag having been applied to the article itself? AllyD (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the page history, a previous version was speedy deleted as A7 but perhaps the talk page was not deleted with it, which might explain why it was retained after the creator decided to recreate the exact same article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP the company founded in 2022 and is not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:22, 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 redirect‎ to The Catherine Tate Show. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joanie Taylor[edit]

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

Zero sources, tag since 2013. Happy for a merge into The_Catherine_Tate_Show but even that character entry has a citation needed tag. Qcne (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Catherine_Tate_Show. Nothing to merge since there are no sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as WP:ATD. No apparent sources, and safe to say there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:02, 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 redirect‎ to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Flores[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 one cap 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. This interview was about all I dug up. JTtheOG (talk) 19:37, 16 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) 19:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The article fails WP:GNG as in-depth coverage is lacking. Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers as suggested above. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:55, 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 List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Antonio[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 three 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) 19:33, 16 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) 19:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers - no apparent WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 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. If an editor wants to work on improving this article in Draft space and submitting it to WP:AFC for a proper review, let me know or go to WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akshat Sharma[edit]

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

Not notable. Having non-RS Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, India, and Delhi. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The article is written with proper references. Its about one of the prominent slide guitarist in the field of Indian Classical Music. References are given from the news articles and from book written by award winning author. I see that one reference from Twitter was marked as unreliable source but would like to clear that it was from the official handle of a leading news channel. It was not an individual opinion or something. Would like to request that article should be kept. AKSF01 (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason for deleting an article which is written as per norms and proper references AKSF01 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AKSF01 whats ur connection with akshat? Worldiswide (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The provided sources are sponsored content, and I couldn't find anything on Google to establish notability. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange that news articles published by well known Newspapers are looking sponsored content. It's how articles are being written for musical artists. And such sources are only used in Wikipedia for musical artists. Links to all the press coverage are shared because all the content is not there on google or in soft copy format. And a person notability is not ascertained by simply doing a google search. AKSF01 (talk) 13:26, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genrobotics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously soft deleted, then recreated. Notability still not clearly established. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources to provide notability PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi PaulGamerBoy360, can you point to even one source that meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability? Please point to the particular para/section you believe meets CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many of the sources fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and are press releases or churnalism. The others fail WP:ORGCRIT. Pinging Lordofhunter and HighKing who were the only two votes in the recent nomination that ended in a soft delete.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sources listed in the article are entirely based on announcements and/or information provided by the company/execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 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 redirect‎ to Hellboy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ogdru Jahad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N. I can't find any significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. Every DDG result is either another wiki, or a trivial mention (mentions in pop-culture listacles about Hellboy, etc.). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hellboy or some relevant list of characters that would mention this. Nothing in this plot summary suggests this is close to meeting WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. Clear cut case of failing the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:01, 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 redirect‎ to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marilena Georgiou[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 eight 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. This and this is what I found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:10, 16 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) 18:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:55, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Los Angeles College Alumni Association[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG ElKevbo (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 9 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!} 17:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NCORP as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:25, 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 merge‎ to Doctor Who (season 25). and possible Merge to several other articles mentioned in this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cartmel Masterplan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is, at best, a footnote in history. A version of the Doctor Who timeline that was never actually written, and was one subplot for a version of the show which was never written.

I think pretty much every source is in this article. If this is anywhere on Wikipedia, it should be a few sentences in another article. I shall cite WP:FANCRUFT and let slip the dogs of war. BrigadierG (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and England. BrigadierG (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the discussion from its prior AfD still stands. It's a part of Doctor Who's developmental history that has been discussed in multiple sources. If consensus decides on a merge, I wouldn't be opposed, but I believe this has grounds to stick around. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator that this doesn't have enough coverage for a separate article. Or perhaps merge the content to Doctor Who (season 25), which might benefit from some details about the season's development. It doesn't make sense to create a WP:CONTENTFORK purely about a show's development, particularly when the main article is short and lacking. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generous merge to Doctor Who (season 25) - as in, the kind that takes the whole article wholesale and makes it a section, not the kind of merge that is just a redirect and maybe one sentence. This seems clearly notable and sourced, but agree that it is probably covered better as "this is what we planned for the next season but it fell through." Just because a topic is notable doesn't mean it's best covered in a standalone article - seems like a classic case where this is better off as a section of a larger topic. SnowFire (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue I would see about a merge to Doctor Who (season 25) is that some of the material relates more to Doctor Who (season 26) (and arguably the unmade season 27). Might Seventh_Doctor#Story_style be a better option? Dunarc (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not both? I don't think this warrants a separate article, but I could be convinced about where this should be covered. Either way, I think the details of a re-organization or merge can be worked out through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason to delete, if not notable it should be merged with either Doctor Who (season 25) or Andrew Cartmel. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Doctor Who (season 25) or Andrew Cartmel. Seems to be cobbled from WP:SIGCOV failing mentions in passing, but deserves a redirect to somewhere it can be briefly mentioned. It's a fancruft footnote, but probably should not be a red link. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Son Of The Sun[edit]

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

Non-notable track by non-notable artist Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom rationale. Article author also seems to have attempted to create a page for the artist, which was rejected at WP:AFC for lack of notability/coverage, so there’s some precedent here. The Kip 19:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For Nigerian singers we've learned that managers have perfected the art of blitzing unreliable gossip sites with promotional announcements. So this singer does appear in some online sources, but read them and you will notice shameless weasel words and other unreliable shenanigans. This singer has not risen above that scheme and the album under discussion here has never been described or reviewed in reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From Nsukka With Love, another EP article for the same artist created on the same day by the same person. Gjs238 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: creator seems to be obsessed or rather connected to the artist as there are other article(s) which are not notable and connected to this one. ihateneo (talk) 02:31, 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Ankara Stadium[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I didn't find any sigcov in English, might be WP:TOOSOON, since the construction only started in July 2022. If someone can look into it in Turkish, it would be great. TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Seems like TOOSOON is a bit of a weak argument here. News coverage is plenty in Turkish. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it is not expected to open until the 25/26 season https://www.gazeteilksayfa.com/ankara-19-mayis-stadyumunun-acilisi-ertelendi-198487h.htm I doubt it is worth the bother of deleting and recreating. However someone in Ankara will likely know better than me Chidgk1 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are five sources in the tr.wiki article and a search for “Ankara yeni stadyum” shows plenty of news coverage. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly notasble fotbal staidum in Turkey. Article needs improvement, not deeltion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. While maybe a tad WP:TOOSOON, notability will be clearly evident upon its completion, and I don’t believe it’s worth the hassle of deleting only to inevitably recreate when completed/opened. The Kip 19:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:53, 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Mincarelli[edit]

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

No relevant secondary sources, beyond not independent fan-owned media (and an app that helps share such content), in order to meet WP:GNG. Furthermore, the creator of this page is quite accustomed to creating page with questionable sources. Coco (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --Coco (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We no longer consider footballers to be inherently notable, right? So they need to pass WP:GNG, and he don't. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage on AllezPallaide is independent and with an editorial staff as per their about page. At worst Draftify as he just made his pro debut in a high-coverage league. I'm also a little disappointed at the dig at the end from an editor with a similar editing style to my own.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 15:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per GS. Govvy (talk) 13:25, 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 delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambika Dutt Ranga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article that was kept at AfD 15 years ago despite having no reliable sources (WP:RS) or independent sources (WP:IS) and despite a clear consensus from participants to have the article deleted. The article was 'supported' by one dubious source called Ambika Sports, which, unsurprisingly, no longer exists. An archived version can still be accessed here but I don't feel comfortable having an article based solely off what appears to be a website dedicated solely to the subject. The Ambika Sports website appears to have been entirely written by one person, with no mention of their credentials. I can't find even a mention of "Ambika Dutt Ranga" in any other source or database. The Ambika Sports website claims to organise a competition called "Ambika Football Gold Cup" but there are no hits for this anywhere either. At best this seems unverifiable and a failure of WP:V and, at worst, this is a hoax. In any case, we should also consider whether there is any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, as I see both as being comprehensively failed here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No inherent notability as a footballer, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Previous AFD was also a bad close, sorry. Giant Snowman 15:52, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biaklian Paite[edit]

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

Current references don't show notability and nothing decent found in my searches, which is not surprising, given that his professional career has been painfully brief. Best sources found were Arunfoot, Goal.com and Indians in Kuwait, all of which only mention Paite once and are clearly not WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Manipur. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:51, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayaba National School[edit]

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

The school exists but the coverage lacks the depth required for WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The best that I can find in Sinhalese are The Papare, Lanka News Web and Lankadeepa, all of which only address the school in passing. Article created by WP:SPA with clear WP:COI. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools aren't inherently notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL. Dan arndt (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:09, 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 keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Karavis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article about a fictional character lacks reliable sources. The only sources cited in the article are the author's own works. Tagged as needing additional references since 2012. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even cursory WP:BEFORE shows that this is a Keep with newspaper articles[6][7] (which actually are mentioned or linked from the article), as well as scholarly coverage in journals[8][9][10][11] and in books on literary hoaxes[12] Jahaza (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Come on, the sources are there people! The Guardian, The Globe and Mail, let alone the many academic references, papers and pieces about the whole thing. We're WAY beyond WP:GNG already and I haven't even broken a sweat. Silly academic hoax? Check. Influentially, notably so? Check. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of Solvay's students at it again? So he could use the character? No amount of sources is going to satisfy some people Skysmith (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poorly referenced article, but also a poor nomination that is an obvious failure of WP:BEFORE. Speedy close, seriously, and WP:TROUT the nom for skipping the BEFORE step. That said, article can be tagged with {{notability}} (well, {{sources exist}} is better), I guess.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1924 U.S. Figure Skating Championships[edit]

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

Unnotable; no lasting significance and no significant coverage. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two references from The New York Times. This is not local coverage; the championships took place in Philadelphia. The event had as much lasting significance as any other national championship in the United States, establishing who is best in a particular sport. Simply googling "1924 U.S. Figure Skating Championships" doesn't always work. I used the internal New York Times search, searched for "Figure Skating Championships" and restricted the search to calendar year 1924. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Utterly reads like an IDONTLIKEIT nomination. With the sources added it definitely passes GNG. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From the sources provided by Eastmain, this subject clearly does pass WP:GNG. Did the nom conduct a WP:BEFORE check? User:Let'srun 13:32, 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. Star Mississippi 21:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Al-Mohanadi[edit]

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

Unnotable under WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:51, 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 18:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Nyamayaro[edit]

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

Article about a talent manager that fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are mostly blogs which are non-rs. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Zimbabwe. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You lost me at "Zimbabwean socialite"... Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Alexandermcnabb, would you say such a thing without the word 'Zimbabwean' in front of it? Pippa Middleton's opening sentence is "Philippa Charlotte Matthews... is a British socialite". Has that got you lost also? Or does the word socialite only work in the Western realm? Mangwanani ^(talk) 15:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chip, much? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again - I repeat the question - would you say such a thing if a European were so described? Yours is a very strange comment to make and I think you ought to explain it, lest anyone think ill of your intentions... Mangwanani ^(talk) 16:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine their argument is that seeing "socialite" added so prominently in the lead to a bit of skepticism. Being a socialite as a defining characteristic could be seen as something not particularly likely to be meeting this WP:BLP/WP:GNG standards. Maybe not the strongest !vote, but also not quite as outrageous as you seem to see it either? Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73 Just what came to my mind. @Mangwanani there was no "ill intention" meant by @Alexandermcnabb. I think you just overread meaning into his statement but again, no "ill intention" meant. Cheers, Jamiebuba (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some coverage [13], [14], flowery language. Seems similar to the wording used in various Nigerian sources. Regardless of the quality, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. ihateneo (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:05, 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 12:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morravey[edit]

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

Absolutely not a shred of notability for this Nigerian singer - signally fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO and nothing to say really beyond that. Strong whiff of UPE here, creator's three other articles - their sole contribution to WP from a standing start, are also arguably non-notable Nigerian musicians... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely TOOSOON, there are some mentions in decent sources [15], but I don't think the artist has made it far enough for notability here. Could draft I guess, if she's getting big soon, could have a chance at an article here in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She has notability, it is you that don't know her, she's notable. Pls I see no reason why this article should be deleted Ashworldakagreatobodo (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of SIGCOV and huge chunk of unreliable sources. Does not satisfy GNG. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. No certification(s) nor charting song(s), maybe we'll circle back when they achieve Gold. ihateneo (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable, she was signed by Davido. Singer Morravey is notable Ashworldakagreatobodo (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all just saying delete, but pls, if you find the article not well arranged you people should help do so, Not been so mean here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashworldakagreatobodo (talk • contribs) 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Ashworldakagreatobodo, Note that articles are not deleted based on how they are written/arranged but based on the existence of suitable sources, I would help improve the article if there was something to work with but unfortunately it's just TOOSOON. ihateneo (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Yes she has been profiled in Nigerian entertainment pages, but we have learned in this community that those are unreliable gossip and promotional sites that accept publicity announcements from music managers without further analysis. This singer is only known as a featured guest on one song by someone else, and has not yet reached the personal achievements that are needed for an article here. If she becomes notable in her own right in the future, then a Wikipedia article can be written then. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO upcoming not notable at this point a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:54, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Velkov[edit]

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

My Greek language searches failed to find any coverage for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources found were Kerkida (translated), a brief transfer announcement with a copy and paste of a club press release, Sport FM, a passing mention about being fined for poor behaviour, and Thema Sports, a brief mention about being suspended. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:51, 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. ✗plicit 12:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Vasiliou[edit]

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

There are plenty of people with this name, including a Greek Cypriot politician, but I can't find anything to suggest that the footballer born in 1996 of this name is notable per WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Sports Up has an article about a much older footballer, who happens to be a goalkeeper not a midfielder, and 24 Sports has a transfer announcement about another Antonis Vasiliou, this one being a defender born in 1993. To make matters worse, Barnet FC also have a footballer with the same name. The only hits that may or may not be about this Antonis Vasiliou were Phile News and Kerkida (translated), neither of which were even close to WP:SIGCOV. I can't see anything to suggest that an article is required. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:50, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Bajgai[edit]

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

Another obscure folk musician from Nepal that fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Expressive101 (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He looks rather notable to me. His awards seem to have a national significance. See also this and this among other things.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are lots of significant coverage about him in reliable, secondary as well as independent sources to the subject, like Himalaya Times, Madhyanna daily, gorkhpatraonline etc. Fade258 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are plenty of sources here for WP:NBASIC. Note that NBASIC allows us to combine non-significant coverage from multiple sources to contribute toward establishing notability, which may be relevant here. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:15, 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 12:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Călin Chirilov[edit]

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

Article created due to 1 minute of professional football over 6 years ago but no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. The best that I can find are Spoltore Notizie, a transfer announcement which lists his position, nationality, previous clubs and height - not enough on its own as GNG and SPORTBASIC need more than one decent source. I also found Est-Curier but the mentions are way too brief for this to count at all towards GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Moldova. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 21:35, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trafalgar Releasing[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP due to only having routine press coverage based on press releases. Expressive101 (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 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 keep‎. There is consensus that the sources added while the AfD was open show that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Moon (game)[edit]

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

Non-encyclopaedic page about a subject not yet shown to be notable. Expressive101 (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Dozens of these proprietary games are produced every year; a few win prizes and go on to become notable (Uno being a leading example), but this is not one of them. Bermicourt (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added excerpts from lengthy reviews found in two large-circulation European magazines which I believe denotes notability. Guinness323 (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guinness323, meets WP:GNG for notability. BOZ (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep per updated sourcing. And, in general, everything by Reiner Knizia is probably notable. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benisha Poudel[edit]

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

Listy promotional page cobbled together from primary sources about an amateur singer who fails WP:GNG Expressive101 (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 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 keep‎. While some of the arguments in this discussion were not particularly strong, nobody has objected to Thincat's assertion that the relevant notability thresholds are met here. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dipak Sharma[edit]

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

100 plus sources and none of them are secondary. There's no way that this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Expressive101 (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be at least three references containing sufficient assessment work by the authors for them to be counted as "secondary" and which contain enough for a brief article.[16][17][18] The apparant reference bombing is due to the detailed referencing for the excessive lists of awards, etc. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable person. Citadeol(talk) 17:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources like Online Khabar, Annapurna post, Himalaya times, Image Khabar is a reliable, secondary as well as independent sources to the subject. Fade258 (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are a lot of sources. It can be considered significant.--Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 14:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject has been making the news for quite some time, therefore has a credible claim to notability. ihateneo (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:48, 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 12:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khalilullah Masjid[edit]

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

not a notable, also lacks in-depth coverage & Refs are not about subject itself. DSP2092^talk 09:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia, India, and Delhi. DSP2092^talk 09:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG/WP:Sigcov. The page creator was already told to go through AFC, as they don't understand notability guidelines, I have drafti-fied many of their articles as they were not notable. But they submitted it without improvement which got declined again by other reviewers. Maliner (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Jaafar[edit]

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

I can't find anything in Swedish or Arabic language sources to suggest that Jaafar meets WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which is the absolute bare minimum requirement for an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:50, 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. ✗plicit 12:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Shankar[edit]

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

I put David Shankar + Singer into Google and it just returned user-generated blogs and fanzines there's no significant coverage or reviews in in any major music publications, they've released their music via their own digital-record label, they haven't played any major festivals. I don't think this subjected is notable, sorry. Expressive101 (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roshani Rasaili[edit]

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

Absolutely no way of verifying WP:GNG with untranslated Nepalese sources. The sources obfuscate verification. Expressive101 (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if there are no resources where you live, plenty of online courses are available in Nepali.[19] If you do not trust machine translation you could withdraw this nomination and only resubmit it when you have been able to assess the available material. Thincat (talk)
Comment: Agree with Thincat. You can always ask for help at WP:TRLA. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one English language source found and added and no reason not to AGF that the many sources are reliable and support notability. En.wiki accepts sourcing in other languages, so one editor's inability to read Nepali is not a valid reason to propose deletion. The sources for an article might have been printed books not held in the editor's local library, equally difficult to verify, equally acceptable as valid. PamD 07:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are lots of reliable, secondary as well as independent sources to the subject. I agree with PamD statements. Fade258 (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:40, 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 21:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persikad 1999[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Single source is a broken link, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly an d in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 09:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One search of Persikad 1999 pemain yields many results about the club. Article needs imporvemnt, not deleton. THanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Where are the significant coverage in sources that DO has apparently found? If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This user has created many of these non-notable team stubs. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:33, 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 Split‎. There is clear consensus to split this article, with a portion being merged with Tripoli, and another being turned into a standalone article about Mouchli. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drobolitza and Mouchli[edit]

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

While the two sites exist and are notable, their inclusion together in a single article is odd; they are unrelated, apart from being in a certain proximity to one another. In addition, Drobolitza is modern Tripoli, Greece, and any information can and should be added there (cf. 'Etymology' section). Constantine ✍ 09:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split, not delete. If Mouchli is notable, then deleting this article makes no sense. Assuming that the identification of Drobolitza with Tripoli is correct, then you could indeed merge some or all of the information about it there, keeping anything relevant to Mouchli, then move what remains to a better title (probably "Mouchli"). That would be consistent with the goals of the encyclopedia: preserving potentially useful knowledge, and making it accessible. P Aculeius (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, a split could be in order.★Trekker (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem with spinning off the little info there is to an article about Mouchli, I am happy to flesh it out in due course. But 'Drobolitza and Mouchli' as a topic and as a title (even as a redirect) makes no sense, it would be like having an article on 'Venta Silurum and Isca Augusta'. Constantine ✍ 18:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Mouchli without leaving a redirect. Remove extraneous material to Tripoli, Greece. Create Drobolitza redirect. In other words, what P Aculeius said. Srnec (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this proposal. Constantine ✍ 15:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposal summarized by Srnec. Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:39, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of incarcerated musicians[edit]

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

A list with the explicit purpose of documenting people in a certain profession that are currently in jail appears to be against the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists of people, and Crime. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I have a hunch that "musician" + "went to prison" is not an especially significant intersection that meets WP:LISTN. I have not attempted to find out, but I do know that this list does not attempt to prove it. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator cited a violation WP:BLPCRIME, but that policy is about people who have only been accused of a crime, and requires the "innocent until proven guilty" stance. However, most of the people in this list article have been convicted and are currently in prison, so describing them as such is not a violation of the cited policy. Exception: the final entry on Superstar Pride should be removed for this reason, as he is awaiting trial and is technically still just accused of the crime. Otherwise, I'm not so sure the article satisfies WP:NLIST, but I'm undecided on that front for now and will see what other voters think. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: I linked the wrong section. What I meant to link to was WP:BLPCAT which says this Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist. (See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Subjective inclusion criteria and Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Opinion about a question or issue.) These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no difference, because this list article simply describes the people as "incarcerated" which is true and not a matter of false light or reputation. I could call someone racist and that is a judgmental opinion that can damage their reputation. But if someone is literally in prison then I can call them "incarcerated" because that's the word for someone who is in prison. (Again, Superstar Pride at the bottom of the list should be removed.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this list article could possibly be deleted for much simpler reasons as described at WP:NLIST, in which case you could adjust the rationale in your nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text I included above literally mentions criminals and says that this applies equally to lists. People who are incarcerated are people who have been charged with crimes. I don't have any problems with the article being considered for deletion under WP:NLIST either but I think my argument still holds merit. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I disagree that this violates BLPCAT. Stating that someone is incarcerated is factual, and does not "suggest that" someone has "a poor reputation". However, I agree with LaundryPizza03 that this likely does not meet LISTN. Music in prisons is a notable topic, but the fact that musicians are amongst people in the population who get incarcerated is not a phenomenon that has been written about in relevant literature. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This would look better if the lead could be expanded with some prose about the individuals. It's kind of hard to violate WP:BLPCAT on a list like this, when each person on the list was high-visibility for their arrests, trials and incarceration. This list merely puts the individuals in one grid/list. I don't have a problem with this list, or similar lists of high-visibility public figures. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CROSSCAT as others have already mentioned, but also because of "The following list includes notable musicians who are currently incarcerated.". There definitely are BLP issues from saying that so-and-so is incarcerated when they no longer are, unless people are fastidiously updating this list, which is not reasonable to expect. Any kind of "current" list like this shouldn't really exist. You could convert it to something like "who have ever been incarcerated", but again, there are still CROSSCAT issues. Side note, everyone, stop using "notable" in article text. It's Wikipedia jargon that doesn't mean the same thing as the common use of the word. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this was mostly my train of thought when I was thinking about what might cause BLP issues and how the cross-categorization of musician and incarcerated might violate the spirit of WP:BLPCAT. As far as I can tell you're the first one to bring up CROSSCAT specifically, so thank you for linking that. People can be incarcerated for a variety of reasons and it just doesn't sit right with me to have a list like this that could easily become coatrack of BLP issues. There's a decent amount of musicians that are notable enough in the Wikipedia-sense but aren't really public figures and hypothetically could be included in a list like this. But it's fairly obvious my judgement isn't unanimous right now so it's good this AfD has participation with different perspectives. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:04, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Jamil ur Rehman[edit]

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

No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 5 references, 3 are announcement of his promotion to the same office and two are announcements for his demotion from that office. Reviewed during NPP. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Pakistan. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:17, 9 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!} 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person and sources are not enough. Citadeol(talk) 07:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appointed to the position for less than a year and sacked for non-performance. Didn't have much time in the position to become notable. Google search mostly shows him being quoted because of events which are not to do with him, he just happened to be there doing his job. No broad in-depth coverage of him in and off himself. TarnishedPath^talk 07:33, 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!} 03:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arghushal Swati[edit]

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

No indication of wp:notability. Article was previously deleted and creator is blocked and indicated they are Swati and wanted to get the word out. The nature of the material appears editor generated with references cited only for factoids in that creation. One reference is just for land ownership, one for a geographic fact, and two are a blog talking about info derived from DNA. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 9 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!} 04:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found for this sub-group/ethnic group. I tried using the native language, but I can't tell which sources are RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hidenori Takahashi (voice actor)[edit]

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

No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or the SNG. Zero GNG sources or GNG type coverage. All references are database type entries from database type websites. Reviewed during NPP. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Anime and manga, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 9 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!} 04:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, given recent work on the page by article creator, this ATD seems like a good option to improve the state of citations. There's certainly an argument to be made for NACTOR here. —siro χ o 05:29, 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 merge‎ to BYD Company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BYD HES[edit]

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

Old orphan article about a non-notable product. Refs are directory entries or trivial mentions. Maybe just redirect to BYD_Company, but the product is not mentioned there. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 9 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!} 04:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to BYD Company —siro χ o 05:34, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Dené–Caucasian language[edit]

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

I suggest deletion rather than a merge into Dené–Caucasian languages because that language family is itself widely rejected by mainstream linguistics. Note that this is not to be confused with the Dené–Yeniseian languages, which is a plausible (and in my view likely) macrofamily that would represent a stunning cross-continental migration. Even that family, which is not (quite/yet, depending on one's view of it) fully accepted, does not have its own proto-language as a separate article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been addressed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has always been a marginal theory and had zero effect on the mainstream.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main article meets WP:GNG for a fringe topic, but all spin-off articles are fringe-promoting by their very existence. Also agree that the material is non-mergeable, since excessive in-universe detail in fringe articles produces undue weight. –Austronesier (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to: delete Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots, redirect Proto-Dené–Caucasian language to Dené–Caucasian languages. The title "Proto-Dené–Caucasian language" is a legitimate search term. –Austronesier (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Maybe instead of an article, the fringe theory could have a cited mention with an parent article. Yuchitown (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Delete this is the linguistics version of a geoscience article which presumes a flat earth as a given. This is a sub-basement of fringe which has no evidence for it, and there’s a few of these article around that probably need to be AfDd. Fails GNG and inherently PROFRINGE.

Warrenmck (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per everyone else, this is WP:OR and WP:PROMO of WP:FRINGE. Also support deletion of related articles as per User:Warrenmck's recommendation. Yuchitown (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shenaaz Nanji[edit]

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

I am acting on behalf of the author. She is a private person and no longer wants a wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oilers1982 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 15 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~Are saying that you are acting in behalf of author of this article? Probably creator of this article Princelibra! Then creator have to apply WP:G7.~~ Alright, sorry for misunderstanding. The subject is the author/writer.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

*Delete: The nomination was bit confusing but this article lacks WP:SIGCOV as I don't find any significant coverage subjecting this author and fails WP:GNG. Keep: Satisfied with Bearcat's explanation and improvements in the article. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Medicine, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can certainly discuss what information should or shouldn't be included in the article, if the subject has privacy concerns, but the question of whether a person gets a Wikipedia article or not is not their own decision to make, it's our notability criteria's decision to make. The subject is a writer who has received a nomination for Canada's top-level national literary awards, which is precisely the kind of inherent notability claim where we have to have something — every single person whose name appears in either 2008 Governor General's Awards (the year she got the nomination in) or Governor General's Award for English-language children's literature (the category) has to be either already a bluelinked article or fair game to have an article created as soon as somebody gets around to it, and there can be absolutely nobody in either of those articles who is ever off limits for us to have an article about: the importance of the award is such that we need to have an article about everybody who was nominated for it, and cannot deem some nominees to be special no-go cases for some other reason outside of the criteria.
Further, I suspect that the subject's real problem was the WP:SPA who's been spending several months trying to insert and revert-war over claims that the subject is part owner of an abortion clinic, while providing neither valid sourcing nor a reason why it would be Wikipedia's job to even give a flying honk in the first place — but that's not a reason to delete the article, it's a reason to resort to the other mechanisms (such as the temporary page protection I've already applied to it, and blocking the offending editor) that we have in place to protect our articles from abuse. And, for added bonus, I'm in the middle of repairing the sourcing problems right now, so there isn't even a GNG failure in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I appreciate your observations, could you please clarify if being nominated for a notable award without winning it, and lacking coverage in accordance with Wikipedia's significant coverage WP:SIGCOV, meets the criteria outlined in the General notability guideline WP:GNG? ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, look at the article again, because she doesn't lack for SIGCOV — I've already added a whole bunch of solid sourcing from GNG-compliant publications. Secondly, winning an award is not the base requirement for "notable because award" — for top-level awards, such as the Oscars, the Grammys or the most prominent national literary awards, that curate a shortlist of finalists between the "evaluation of all valid submissions" and "announcement of the ultimate winner" phases of the process, even just the nomination itself is a valid notability claim, because the nomination itself already represents a significant distinction over and above the 100 other peers who didn't get nominated at all. Obviously there can sometimes still be cases where there's no other valid sourcing at all besides the technical verification of the nomination itself, thus posing a problem actually writing a GNG-compliant article — but as I already pointed out, that isn't applicable here, because I've already added improved GNG-compliant sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this explanation; it has greatly expanded my knowledge base. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Bearcat's reasoning. Author is notable. I'll also keep an eye on this article going forward since there's a SPA attacking it.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the coverage uncovered by Bearcat since the beginning of this AfD demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for a dedicated page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on wide coverage. I concur with Bearcat. Sourcing demonstrates notability. Easily meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bearcat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:38, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Perfect Hair Salon[edit]

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

I was able to find one review by a non-gaming publication, a short article that's more about DSi games in general than this one in particular, one paraphrase of a press release, two direct copies of a press release, and a very brief mention in a New York Times article. There's a variety of things, but I don't think it has SIGCOV. QuietCicada (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Fashion. QuietCicada (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SIGCOV besides the Wired article does not appear to exist. A single review does not demonstrate it passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:44, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT-owned companies[edit]

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

List of unclear value with significant maintainability problems. As constituted, this is a list of mostly non-notable companies that don't have Wikipedia articles at all -- just three of 28 companies in the "name" column are blue links -- and the possibility of attracting more and more non-notable entries is pretty much limitless, as I've already thought of at least a dozen more (not all notable) LGBT-owned companies I know about that haven't been listed here at all within less than ten minutes of finding the page, which means there are probably hundreds or even thousands that could potentially be added with a modicum of research. And on top of that, it's also just begging for abuse by vandals who want to make trouble.
This is the kind of open-ended and potentially infinite list that would absolutely have to have an "only companies that have Wikipedia articles to link to" cap applied to it on Wikipedia is not a directory grounds, but it just isn't warranted at all if there are only three companies with Wikipedia articles to link to in it. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unwise for us to host this article. If extremists, terrorists or other criminals target these businesses and do them any kind of harm, our ethical position would be terrible. We should leave this to LGBT advocacy organizations who will have the proper experience and knowledge and the right protections and policies to defend the businesses affected.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For one thing, this is a list of "trivial coverage". Per WP:ORGDEPTH "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability", also noting what is considered trivial coverage: "of telephone numbers, addresses, directions, of office locations, branches, franchises, or subsidiaries, of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders, of product or service offerings." This list comes across as a directory for those wanting to patronize LGBT ownership .... or as noted above, those who wish to do harm to the LGBT population. — Maile (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for soapboxing. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assume good faith about the creation of the article, but this is something that shouldn't be categorized under the same criteria as most shopping-related articles, and the one-source to a listicle isn't acceptable. Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NOTDIR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:43, 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. because content in this article fails WP:V. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fanery[edit]

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

Article was reported at ANI as a possible hoax. A google failed to yield any related hits that did not come back to this page. Subject fails WP:V. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(here from AN/I) Delete.^{Undecided, see below} Access to sources about Madagascar is quite limited, as I learned writing a GA in the topic area, so it's worth giving this the 7 days at AfD on the off chance someone finds something. But I cannot find anything remotely approaching verification. Googling fanery -wiki -wikipedia I see a jewelry company called FanerySue and a few random people with Fanery as a forename, but nothing about Malagasy currency/jewelry (and it's suspicious to begin with how the article is unclear on whether it's about currency, jewelry, or both). I wouldn't be shocked if some small portion of this proved true, ~~but the article as a whole is most likely a hoax.~~ -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure how reliable https://malagasyword.org/ is, but it defines fanery as either "forced" or "milk". (The former meaning gleaned through looking up the words in the Malagasy definition, clarifying the ambiguous French definition "presse" [sic; presumably intended pressé].) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and ping @Red-tailed hawk, my coauthor on the aforementioned GA, in case his Madgascar searching skills are any better than mine. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About this meaning of the word, I found [20] which states "Fanery: Un outil traditionnel en bois nécessaire pour presser le canne à sucre pour de liquide sucré." ("Fanery: A traditional wooden tool needed to press sugar cane [...]"). Grmbf (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the article are verifiable, fanafody is Malagasy a medicinal charm[21], coins were first used as jewelry or charms and monnaie coupée is French for 'cut money'.[22]. Maybe not a hoax but something obscure, misunderstood by the author or OR. fiveby(zero) 02:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above points, note that edits to this article and uploads of the associated images are the creator's only contributions ever. In the case of a suspected hoax, this is invariably a bad sign. Coincidentally, last night I attended a live performance of the Depths of Wikipedia show, and Annie Rauwerda mentioned the Jar'Edo Wens hoax. I could barely restrain myself from yelling out "hey, I'm the one who deleted that page after it lasted for ten years!" It's embarrassing that the "Fanery" page, which also is blatant nonsense, has survived for even longer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ad Orientem, Tamzin and Newyorkbrad, although I agree with waiting a full week. The jewelry company with Fanery in the name is entirely unrelated. I searched Google Books and Google Scholar and came up with nothing except that there is an academic named TF Flannery who writes about Madagascar. Cullen328 (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tamzin - I googled and got a similar set of results (although, not speaking French, I also had to google for the meaning of the French word, which sent me to Google which gives "a drink made from freshly squeezed fruit juice, sugar, and ice". Whether or not it's a hoax, it's almost completely unreferenced (the only reference seems to be to off-line information about the historical practice of bisecting or quadrisecting coinage). It also doesn't have a corresponding page in the Malagasy Wikipedia, and I have left a note on their "messages from people who do not speak Malagasy" page advising them of this AFD. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nuke it from orbit; only way to be sure. Really, no need to wait. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: uncited, potential hoax, but really just a failure of WP:V. StartOkayStop (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, History, Archaeology, Economics, and Africa. Skynxnex (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems pretty clear by now that this is a hoax. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 05:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as this pagewas likely a hoax, failing WP:V, and per everyone’s votes above my vote. Signed, 64andtim (any problems?) 05:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a sec! This does partly verify! With thanks to Red-tailed hawk, who found this and sent it to me for translation:
On voit encore parfois, attaché à l'extremité des ceintures, un morceau de fer ayant vaguement la forme de deux triangles accollés par leur pointe sous un angle de 80 degrés. C'est le fanery, que servait autrefois de tournevis pour le fusil, mais n'est plus aujourd'hui qu'un simple ornement.
One sees sometimes, attached to the ends of belts, a piece of iron vaguely in the form of two triangles glued together by their points at an angle of 80 degrees. It is fanery, which once served as screwdrivers for guns, but now are nothing more than a simple ornament.
That's still a long way from verifying every claim in the article, but does suggest at least that the objects in the images can be correctly described as fanery, and that they are a once-relevant thing that has become less common. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any kind of expert knowledge here would help a lot. @Brigade Piron: You appear to be the only active user listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Madagascar. Do you have any insight? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's astonishingly embarrassing, Tamzin. I am afraid I cannot add anything here beyond what has already been said below. @Lemurbaby:, are you still active? —Brigade Piron (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don't have access to the source myself but French Wikipedia [23] cites Briant, Joseph, L'hébreu à Madagascar which says about the Antandroy people "Une de leurs amulettes, le fanery, semble la copie d'un bijou des tombeaux du Nil, les "abeilles"" ("One of their amulets, the fanery, appears to be a copy of a jewel from the Nile tombs, the "bees""). Grmbf (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also from Raymond Decary, "L'art chez les Antandroy", "Je représente ici (Fig. 8) un de ces bijoux, en raison de son élégance ; il est d'ailleurs assez rare et ne porte pas de nom spécial. Il est dérivé du fanery qui servait autrefois de tournevis pour le fusil du guerrier. Les deux lamelles triangulaires du fanery, au lieu d'être jointes par leur sommet, se trouvent chacun à l'extrémité d'une barrette horizontale en argent massif [...]". Grmbf (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again Raymond Decary, "Coutumes guerrières et organisation militaire chez les anciens Malgaches" says "Pour le fusil spécialement, la garniture du ceinturon se complétait, au voisinage de la boucle, par un morceau de fer ayant vaguement la forme de deux triangles accollés par leur pointe sous un angle d'environ 60 degrés : c'était le fanery qui servait de tournevis. Aujourd'hui [...] le fanery est devenu un bijou féminin ; de plus petite taille et fabriqué en argent, il s'est transformé en pendentif chez les femmes Antanosy.". Grmbf (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

commentEinzig, Paul (1966). Primitive Money: In its Ethnological, Historical and Economic Aspects second edition page 125-126 lists two currencies used in Madagascar. One was cattle money. The other was cut up silver coins or “cut money” with their value derived from their weight.©Geni (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no hits for fanery Madagascar on JSTOR, Nature or ProQuest. Couldn't find anything related on archive.org either, got some mis-spellings of infantery and Fanery can be a surname (perhaps that is the "motivation"?). Assuming this is a hoax, is someone "fixing" the Commons side of things? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Like I said above, that those objects are called fanery does appear to verify, albeit so far only in one 100-year-old source. The rest is less certain. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"simple ornament" is not very close to "the traditional money used in Madagascar", is it? Are you assuming the things in the images are those iron ornaments? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article didn't clearly say they were used as money, more that they were made from money. Most of the article is still about ornamental uses; someone along the way just cobbled together a lede based on the ambiguous first words of the original. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does start with "Fanery - Traditional money from Madagascar". Also "As far as prior to 1895 no real money or decimal currency existed in Madagascar" sounds unlikely (though perhaps possible) per Merina Kingdom. Anyway, I appnoted a couple of WP-projects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wehwalt below, it does seem that they didn't mint coins. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång It's not a fix as such, but I have done some rewording and removing of tags on Commons so that Fanery is no longer described as a currency. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Malagasy Wiktionary defines "fanery" as "fomba entimanery" (mg:wikt:fanery); which according to Google Translate means "training method". My very superficial research suggests that 10 or 12 years ago, a bot was adding large numbers of Malagasy words to that Wiktionary even without definitions; negative evidence which casts a shadow over the article under discussion, en:fanery. That article mentions "fanafody" as a name for traditional medicine, which seems to be true; see mg:fanafody. Narky Blert (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Not mentioned in Campbell, Gwyn, "Currency and Currency Problems in Imperial Madagascar, 1820–1895, Currencies of the Indian Ocean World, pp.93-112, August 2019, Springer, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-20973-5_5 - which looks about as RS as it's possible to get. Narky Blert (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only source cited ( online at https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/520966 ) is focussed entirely on monnaie coupee with no mention of fanery. Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (summoned here by note at WikiProject Numismatics) I can't say if fanery exists as a decoration, but from James T. Harris, "'Cut' Money of Madagascar", The Numismatist, March 1956, pp. 263-264, available here though you may hit a paywall (I'd send a screenshot to anyone who emails me), "From the early days of European contact with the island various coins were used, but as the Malagasy had no national or native coinages, foreign coins were used. The chief coin was the Spanish dollar which became the money of account and the standard of recoining. This coin predominated until the early years of the 19th century when increasing trade with foreign nations introduced to the islands a weird mixture of the dollar-sized coins of the world. United States, Mexican, Peruvian, and other American states, Belgic, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Austrian, Sardinian, or any other dollar-size coins were accepted. By the middle of the century the French five franc piece was the main coin in circulation. Referred to in Primitive Money (P. Einzig) p. 135-6, Madagascar and Its Peoples (James Sibree, Jr. , London, 1870) and Three Visits to Madagascar (W. Ellis, London, 1859).

"Ellis says of the Tamatave market, "the money changers were busy cutting up dollars, half dollars, quarter dollars, and smaller pieces, cut silver valued by weight being the universal currency. " Sibree gives the following valuation list.

The dollar had a high relative value when divided into 720 parts. For the payment of all amounts less than a dollar, coins were cut into irregular pieces of varying sizes and weights and weighed by means of a neat little scale and weights which every person carried for that purpose.

"Money weights: Loso — Half dollar Kirobo — Quarter dollar Sikajy — Eighth dollar Roa-voamena — Twelfth dollar. Divisions of the dollar: Grain of rice one vary-venty 10 vary-venty — one eranambatra 9 eranambatra — one sikajy 8 sikajy — one dollar The use of money scales and weights was strictly regulated by law. Four money weights marked by government stamps were used for weighing money. Other amounts were obtained by varying these weights in the opposite scale and adding rice grains.

"Originally money changers charged a small fee for cutting up the coins but subsequently the cut segments passed at a discount from the whole dollar. Occasionally this discount amounted to one-sixth or more but about 1880 it was officially established at one-sixteenth.

"Attempts to introduce a national coinage took place during the reign of Radama II in 1855. This ruler, while still a prince, had granted a charter to a French subject which included the right to coin money with the king's effigy. In 1862 steps preliminary to preparation of this coinage were taken. :"The death of Radama II in 1863 and the repudiation of the charter by his successor caused the project to be abandoned. Another attempt took place in 1866 and originated from a proposal made by the French Resident that instead of chopped off silver from French five franc pieces and other dollars, a national coinage to be minted in France should be instituted. This suggestion was rejected by the Hova Prime Minister who was not prepared to see Madagascar linked with the French Empire, but in the same year orders were sent to England for the minting of a coinage with the head of the queen and an inscription in Malagasy. Like the earlier attempt, this project was abandoned on the death of the queen in 1868.

"After the establishment of the French protectorate in 1896 and the abolition of royal power in the following year, the cut money was prohibited, by the French government. For a time, great difficulty was experienced with the natives in monetary transactions, especially in the interior, but the introduction of vast amounts of silver and copper divisions of the French franc by the protecting power, soon restored public confldence in the islands and the cut money passed out of use."--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt, consider putting something of that on Merina Kingdom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complely unverified. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm able to find a bunch of sources about something called "fanery", but they're all in French, so I'm not going to be as helpful as I would like to be in determining if they're SIGCOV or not:
1. L'Androy, extrême sud de Madagascar (1933) mentions it on pages 61 and 163;
2. Revue d'ethnographie et des traditions populaires, Volume 7 (1926) mentions "Fanery" on page 49 (this is the thing Tamzin quoted);
3. Coutumes guerrières et organisation militaire chez les anciens Malgaches (1966) appears to have some discussion of Fanery on page 65;
4. The index of Végétaux et groupements végétaux de Madagascar et des Mascareignes (1969) indicates that "Fanery" is discussed on page 817 (index entry given by google books as page 1317).
5. Revue internationale de botanique appliquée et d'agriculture tropicale, Volume 12 (1932) mentions Fanery as being the name of a plant (unrelated, but noting here for completeness sake).

My french is not good enough to see whether or not all of these are spurious, and I don't have access to the full sources, but I'm noting this here in case someone with access can check. On a separate note, the translation of the one source provided by Tamzin above indicates that this is probably actually Fanery, and the existence of an object called this is not made up. Whether or not this was used for money, I can't tell. I'll refrain from !voting on this, since I was alerted about this by ping, but I think it's worth digging into sources a bit more before declaring the whole thing to be a hoax. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this image File:Ombiasa.jpg by the article creator is used in the mg-WP article Ombiasa, that may be perfectly "legit" too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: I managed to find the Coutumes link in Google search myself. My French is a tad rusty, and it's high school level, but with the assistance of Google Translate (a little) I get the following:

"Especially for the rifle, the belt's trim is completed, adjacent to the buckle, by a piece of iron vaguely in the form of two triangles attached at their point at an angle of around 60 degrees; this was the fanery which served as a screwdriver. Today, same as the felana, the fanery has become a woman's jewel: smaller in size and made of silver..."

So this is something that did exist, even a century ago, but not for the purpose accorded to it by the article, so far as I can tell. Hope this is useful. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: - Can you provide links to scans of your finds rather than to title pages? I'd be happy to have a look at the French originals. Narky Blert (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: My finds are only what's available through the google books preview. I don't have access to anything else. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look for scans or full texts, but no luck; not even on the old stuff. Narky Blert (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of this post, and after reading the above comments including some serious digging by editors, I think we have reached a point where we can make two observations. First, that some doubt seems to exist as to whether this is a deliberate hoax. And secondly, that despite an exhaustive search of available sources, the claims of fact made in the article remain almost entirely unsourced and suspect as to their veracity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it isn't important whether it was a hoax, really. But there's enough doubt as to the major assertions in the article to dictate that we should delete, if only in an excess of caution. If later it appears we have erred, why, we can always restore the article. Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Though I'd be a bit more emphatic to the point that we just can't have an article where 99% of the claims of fact are completely unverified. Unless somebody uncovers a trove of reliable source evidence for this article, it has to go. And although I didn't mention it in my opening statement above, obviously an article that is effectively unsourced would also fail GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(further to my !vote) I agree, in that it doesn't really matter whether this is a deliberate hoax or not, what matters is that it fails WP:V. Narky Blert (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think this is a fair point. The reason I've emphasized that part of this verifies is because, if someone does manage to find sources for a ground-up rewrite someday (because who knows, maybe said trove of evidence does exist, undigitized, in a Malagasy or French library), I wouldn't want that getting G3'd or G4'd based on a misunderstanding. But WP:V is the most basic requirement for an article (even if for argument's sake we assume that SIGCOV exists somewhere on planet Earth), so unless someone comes up with something in the next week, deletion is the right outcome. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted, this appears to be partly invented and partly merely unverified, but it all fails verifiability. It isn't important how much is a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Man-Ching Donald Yu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no sources in the article to prove the person's notability. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear whether Authority control can demonstrate his notability, but it seems that there are fewer links within Authority control. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article includes several references. As well, the references in the corresponding Chinese article at zh:余文正 may be helpful. See also the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Ching Donald Yu Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 5th and 8th sources at zh:余文正 provide information about him, but they are actually from personal websites. When I searched for his name on Google, I couldn't find any satisfactory results. 日期20220626 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hong Kong. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are some pointers, but hard to tell right now. Contemporary composer, very niche.
1. Here's an album of compositions [24]
2. Ralph P Locke, in Music and Letters, Volume 102, Issue 3, August 2021, Pages 641–643, describes him as "a noted composer as well as scholar". Via TWL [25]

—siro χ o 03:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music and Letters only mentioned his name briefly. 日期20220626 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Canfield, David DeBoor; Nockin, Maria (March–April 2013). "Yu Symphony No. 1. From the Depth. Octet for Strings. Sunset in my Homeland. The Maximum Speed of Raphael's Madonna. Explosion for Piano. Disintegration for Piano and Electronics. Two Poems by Ya Hsien. Breeze". Fanfare. Vol. 36, no. 4. pp. 172–174. ProQuest 1287039828.
  David DeBoor Canfield wrote: "The present CD contains a generous sampling of music by Hong Kong composer and pianist, Dr. Man-Ching Donald Yu, who was born in 1980. As a pianist, Yu made his debut at the age of 16 with the Pan Asia Symphony Orchestra, and eventually earned a B.A. degree from Baylor University. Further musical studies took him to the Internationale Sommerakademie Universität Mozarteum in Salzburg, and he completed his education, being awarded a Ph.D. in composition and music theory at Hong Kong Baptist University. He is currently on the faculty of the Hong Kong Institute of Education. The more than 150 compositions in Yu’s portfolio range from instrumental, vocal, and chamber pieces to large-scale operatic, choral, and symphonic works. The music on this, the second CD devoted to the composer’s music, has been selected to give an overview of the breadth of the genres in which this composer writes."
  Maria Nockin wrote: "Man-Ching Donald Yu is an intriguing composer who writes in several different styles. The first work on this disc is his First Symphony which has three movements that are grouped together on one 20-minute track. The first movement is something of a prelude to the stronger and darker music to come. There is a great deal of melodic material, especially for the Lugansk orchestra’s brass section. It is buoyed up by the strings and punctuated by gestures from the percussionists."
2. Hinterbichler, Karl (July 2010). "Man-Ching (Donald) Yu. Solemn Elegy for four trombones. Orlando, FL: Wehr's Music House, 2007. Playing time 2:00. Score and parts". ITA Journal. 38 (3). International Trombone Association: 46. ProQuest 748815971.
  The article notes: "Donald Yu was born in 1980 in Hong Kong. He earned a Bachelor of Music degree from Baylor University, where he studied piano, composition and conducting and pursued further studies in Austria, Italy, and Germany. He has composed over 100 works in a variety of media. A number of these have been published and recorded. In addition to Solemn Elegy he has composed two other works for trombone, Reflections for Trombone Choir (2006) The Refraction of Shadow for trombone and piano (2007). He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Composition at Hong Kong Baptist University. Solemn Elegy is traditional harmonically and melodically. It contains no musical or technical difficulties that could not be surmounted by an average college quartet. The title describes its musical qualities quite well. If you need a slow, short, somber work to fill out a program, this fits the bill."
3. Rees, Carla (Fall 2014). "New Music Without Borders, Volume 2". The Flutist Quarterly. Vol. 40, no. 1. National Flute Association. p. 71. ProQuest 1619361371.
  The review notes: "Man-Ching Donald Yu's contribution, "Breeze," is intended for "young performers and children who have studied the instrument for a short time and have not been exposed to contemporary music." Based on five chromatic pitches, this three-minute piece uses key clicks, flutter-tonguing, pizzicato, whistle tones, jet whistles, and glissandi to create an evocative sound. Another short piece, Fernando Maglia's "Tropos II," uses similar techniques in a slightly more complex rhythmic and harmonic language, providing a useful progression for students. Attention to detail can be developed with this piece, given its frequent dynamic changes and contrasting moods between short phrases."
4. Camilleri, Silvio John (2013-04-14). "An ambitious effort that delighted". Times of Malta. Archived from the original on 2023-09-10. Retrieved 2023-09-10.
  The article notes: "The second item was the world premiere for Sign of Spring composed in 2012 by Man-Ching Yu. Born in Hong Kong, this composer is frequently inspired by paintings. The work is tinged with an Oriental touch, which intermingles with impressionistic, Western elements; a bit like a Toru Takemitsu composition."
5. Walker, Brian (October 2013). "Music Review: "Fishing in Snow," by Man-Ching (Donald) Yu". International Trumpet Guild Journal. Vol. 38, no. 1. International Trumpet Guild. p. 98. ProQuest 1487696682.
  The abstract notes: "Walker reviews a composition by Yu for trumpet and piano (MusicaNeo)."
6. https://www.manchingdonaldyu.com/reviews^{Internet Archive} has additional reviews.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Man-Ching Donald Yu (Chinese: 余文正) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis of new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC, met per sources found by Cunard. —siro χ o 02:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 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!} 00:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen López[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:14, 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!} 00:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krisean Lopez[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Coverage exists, but trivial at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:14, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Makin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep: The player seems notable as the first time I heard about him was in this New York Times article. He is a notable player on the Belize national football team. I can see his profile on reputable sports websites like ESPN, World football.net, and more.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makin is mentioned once in the NY Times article as one of several players offered a bribe to fix a match. It is not SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Can't read NYT but on its own it won't be enough. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:14, 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.