Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 07	February 09 >

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistence Tour[edit]

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

Although there are many huge names in hardcore on this tour, I can't find independent, reliable, and non-trivial sources about it. Metal Injection and Kerrang! have some very short pieces on it which say no more than "This tour is happening", and Distorted Sound has a review of it which mostly focuses on the performances of the bands, and not the tour itself. There are many more short pieces that fall into one of these categories. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Europe. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Everett[edit]

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

BLP of a subject of doubtful notability, created by a now-blocked user. Someone may see a glimmer of notability here I’ve overlooked. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, and United Kingdom. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - [1] and [2] are borderline for me. There is some decent coverage, but a huge chunk of both are direct quotes from the subject. The rest of the sourcing appears WP:ROUTINE or not directly related to the subject. I cannot find much else myself doing a WP:BEFORE given the commonness of the name (see [3]). Thus, I'm leaning towards deletion. —Sirdog (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sources are Routine. BoraVoro (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L'A Capone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC with no chart or notable label activity backed by bad sourcing. Another drill rapper article in which the subject is hailed as some major figure of the genre with no evidence backing it up, while the only notable citations are mundane coverage of his criminal activity. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are primary and mill news and BEFORE found mill news, promo, database records, nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 13:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per others. No in-depth coverage to meet GNG. S0091 (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Megler[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Only 2 small hits in Australian search engine trove. Sources 2, 4 and 5 are dead. Source 3 appears to be a blog source published by Wordpress. Source 6 is LinkedIn. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Computing, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Del no independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I live in Melbourne, so I am local to this person, but I do not know her. The references are not strong, but they are references. Bduke (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have found two other citations and added them. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I have (easily) fixed the broken link references to Our Digital Heritage, and added several recent instances of significant, detailed, independent coverage: a lengthy profile and interview in The Guardian from 2022 celebrating the 40th anniversary of The Hobbit game; a peer-reviewed article in the RMIT Design Archives Journal from 2023, which covers Megler's work at Melbourne House; and the listing of The Hobbit in the collection of the Australian Centre for the Moving Image museum. By the way, Trove is not a "search engine", it is a library database, primarily known for scanned newspapers pre-1955, I don't think it can or should be used as an arbitrer of notability in Australia or elsewhere. --Canley (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a suitable redirect target: The Hobbit (1982 video game). Pavlor (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Carley it pass notability. DXdy FX (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it was borderline keep with even the original (and independent) references. The Guardian one however is excellent, and easy to find. Seems like a BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a pioneer in early narrative video games, and with the many new references (thank you @Canley!) it fulfils notability requirements. Lijil (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between Register and Guardian, appears to meet GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) GSS ^💬 06:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hicks (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. One reference to an NFL weblink which has no statistics. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, someone with over 100 rushing yards in the NFL, clearly notable. Extensive coverage on newspapers.com, e.g. [4] and [5], receiving a bunch of sigcov just in the past few days due to his death, e.g. [6]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes the WP:GNG with the sources provided, although it should be noted that there is no notability criteria based on statistics in games. Let'srun (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG. Doesn't seem like WP:BEFORE was done. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Miles[edit]

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

Some of the sources such as this and this don't even mention Matthew Miles. Other sources are not WP:SIGCOV and unremarkable awards won. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del 90% of article is puffery by association. - Altenmann >talk 23:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing suggests this person is notable. S0091 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable with off-target sources. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article seems to be getting better, but is not there yet, and is in the middle of major edits. Please, can we hold open the discussion for a few more days? Bearian (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian it has not been edited since the 8th, right after it was nom'd and that was @Altenmann who removed some unsourced content then voted to delete it. S0091 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found zero relevant sources under Google books, scholar, and news. The current sources are not reliable. In 2006, folks might have been able to wiggle around like 9th graders, arguing that they didn't known the rules, but in 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host. In other caes, they are reliable, but the information about the research or organization is at best tangentially related to the person. He appears to be on LinkedIn, and has 12,000 followers. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arthur J. Sills. Consensus for redirect to Arthur J. Sills. It can be further expanded in future if notability develops. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sills Cummis & Gross[edit]

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

Contested prod - searched for independent sources for the unreferenced articles drive but couldn't find enough for NORG Ben Azura (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, New Jersey, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del tagged for notability since 2022 with no improvement. - Altenmann >talk 23:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arthur J. Sills: I contested the PROD because I saw that there were a lot of press mentions and thought there might be some significant coverage of the firm itself. Now that I've completed a search and had time to review sources, this firm appears to be notable in the colloquial sense in that it's a well-connected New Jersey law firm, but I haven't found any coverage of the firm itself beyond brief mentions (usually in the context of identifying an attorney who works for the firm) or WP:MILL reporting on cases or other events that the firm is involved in. I propose redirecting to the first-named founding partner as an ATD. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arthur J. Sills: per vroots. S0091 (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I contest the deletion of the Sills Cummis & Gross page (and the nomination to redirect to Arthur J. Sills) and propose to keep the page with improvements. I have posted several proposed edits for the community’s discussion on the Sills Cummis & Gross Talk Page. Due to COI, these cannot be made without the community’s assistance, but we hope these edits improve the article to Wikipedia’s standards. Gdavis22 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gdavis22 The sources for your proposed edits are about Arthur Sills (NJ Globe titled "The Story of Sills), the firm's website which is a primary source and certainly not independent, an obit for Clive Sills, a routine announcement about the firm changing locations and an entry on list of large NJ firms which is trivial. None of those establish notability for the firm per WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Thank you for your prompt reply. Would you kindly let us know what types of sources can be used to establish notability? For example, there is also a Wall Street Journal Article that mentions the firm’s Newark and New York offices (https://www.wsj.com/articles/people-are-returning-to-restaurants-stores-and-hotels-but-not-yet-the-office-11623749401). Can this be used as a notable source? Gdavis22 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gdavis22 No. Please do take the time to thoroughly read the criteria I linked above, WP:NCORP. What the firm says about itself is not usable. For those who do not have access, the article is about post-COVID return to work and the portion regarding the firm is: Law firm Sills Cummis & Gross, which has offices in New York and Newark, N.J., started bringing back employees this month, managing partner Max Crane said. He said the plan was complicated by finances, politics, health and human nature. “You have to respect the psychological and emotional pieces of it,” he said. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gdavis22: Here's my brief summary of what sources qualify in making sure that a topic is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article: For a Wikipedia article about an organization (such as a law firm) to be published, the organization must be notable. An organization is notable if you can provide multiple reliable, independent sources and if each of those sources has significant coverage—in-depth discussion—of the organization. Under Wikipedia's guidelines: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable."
A source is generally considered to be reliable if it has some clear editorial standards, including fact checking. For example, The New York Times or a scholarly journal article would be considered reliable.

A source is independent if it is not a person or organization associated with the company. Trade publications are looked upon with skepticism. Press releases and interviews with company employees are not independent.

Coverage of a company is significant if the subject is covered in depth in the source; passing mentions and routine news stories are generally not significant. "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the ... organization."

voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arthur J. Sills - online, there is mostly just press releases or non-WP:SIGCOV. Maybe this firm will be notable in the future. Unfortunately the content provided by Gdavis22 is not apt.

TLA (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaland (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The links on this page are all WP:Partial title matches, many of which are already linked from Nagaland. Ultimately, "Nagaland" is not ambiguous. This page is therefore not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nagaland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rename or merge - I agree it doesn't look like other disamb pages but seems like it might be useful for navigation purposes. JMWt (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant with Category:Nagaland. The main difference is that a disambiguation page gets a hatnote at the very top of the article, while a category is relegated to the very bottom. This is a bit jarring, but that's how it's been since forever, because hatnotes are meant to resolve ambiguity. If there's no actual ambiguity, just partial title matches, it really doesn't make sense for such a list to get a link in the hatnote. And having a "list of things whose name includes the term Nagaland" runs awfully close to violating the principles described in WP:SHAREDNAME, so even if that mainly relates to categorization it might still be controversial for an index. Plus, it seems a bit contrived, cf. WP:LISTN. --Joy (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keka (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most coverage is routine funding coverage and routine "hottest growing startups" lists. As for other stuff: IndianWeb2 is the most in-depth source, but it's a blog. The two Entrepreneur sources are from contributors, which by WP:RSPSS are unreliable. Analytics Insight and Telegana Today look like interviews. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and India. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Singapore, Telangana, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del no independent in-depth coverage.- Altenmann >talk 23:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sufficient sigcov. popodameron ⁠talk 01:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lovely Sparrows. (non-admin closure) GSS ^💬 06:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Jones (musician)[edit]

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

Unnotable. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (music) as most sources are either interviews or unreliable sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lovely Sparrows, I can't find sufficient coverage on him in RS for a separate article. Wikishovel (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lovely Sparrows per Wikishovel. There does not appear to be sufficient standalone coverage to justify a separate WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Satanists[edit]

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

Not notable, practically no coverage outside of one or two store pages. Citations are not deserving of saving this. (In hindsight, should have just requested for deletion initially.) detria^skies 16:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. detria^skies 16:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del - no coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find WP:SIGCOV using WP:BEFORE. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is barely any evidence that this comic strip exists. The only places that discuss it are not independent of it. Honestly, it is unclear that this comic strip is the main topic for this term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by an Admin‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured It Out[edit]

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

unreviewed music by non-notable musician, fails WP:NMUSIC microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 16:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9 and G11. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Made by user purely to promote their song and it's completely unnotable. ''Flux55'' (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete delete delete Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 20:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: certainly non-notable, possibly created under a CoI by Dalllaschapmanfan. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He actually admitted it in the article's talk page, so... ''Flux55'' (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Delete - just to pile it on. The nominator and previous voters are correct, this kid trying to promote his song is incorrect. (What is "Compilated" and why is it capitalized?) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Townsend[edit]

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

I was unable to find any sources proving the notability of this individual, whether under the name "Lena Townsend" or "Lena Moncrieff/Lena Moncrieff Townsend"; the page has been marked as unreferenced since 2009. Most results about this specific person that I could find trace back to the English Wikipedia. She is noted as having a CBE, so that might prove her notability, but I can't find any sources that prove that she was in fact awarded a CBE. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Best I could find is a "paranormal investigator" with the same name; seeing as this individual the article is about has passed away, it's not the same person. I don't find coverage of the politician. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's some debate about MBEs and OBEs, but CBEs are virtually always held to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. See User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with a CBE or above. Jfire (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference for CBE: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/46254/supplement/4396 Jfire (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the CBEs who were successfully nominated for deletion had no sources about them to be found, which is the case for Townsend. There's much written about her career in the articlei but nothing to back it up (although maybe there's more about her in offline sources)? Jaguarnik (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:ANYBIO #1. People are not appointed CBE for no reason and it is ludicrous of Wikipedia to assume people awarded high honours (especially those who were active before the internet era) are not notable just because it's hard to find anything about them online. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I didn't assume she wasn't notable because I couldn't find anything online; I admit that I don't have access to offline resources. I performed a check for sources and at the time couldn't find anything that proved she was awarded the honor in the first place. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ANYBIO #1 is not a secondary notability criterion; "meeting one or more [of the NBIO criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Sure, people don't get CBE's for no reason, but that's not sufficient reason to keep an unsourced article for which nobody can find sources. I'm not !voting because I have not undertaken a search. My view is that the burden of establishing notability is on the keep !votes. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She does have a substantial entry in Who's Who. As one would expect of a CBE, leader of ILEA and deputy chairman of the GLC. This is not a low-profile person. But she was active before the internet era. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does TWL not provide access to British newspaper archives, books via Oxford, etc. that might contain coverage of her? I have found significant coverage for far more obscure topics than a person with a CBE ought to have. "But there must be sources" is not a good reason to keep, particularly when the article is completely unsourced. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This entry talks about Townsend (https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540891.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-37938?rskey=At6mWc&result=1) but it's locked behind a subscription and I cannot access it, even with the Wikipedia Library. Jaguarnik (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could try WP:RX. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:ANYBIO #1. CBE. Lightburst (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus to keep per NUNI established. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic Mediterranean University[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and no WP:RS available. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Xegma(talk) 15:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep - unless shown to be a fake, it is hard to believe that a degree-awarding institution with more than 12 thousand students is not notable per advice at WP:NUNI JMWt (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del no independent in-depth coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep, is is notable (WP:NUNI) and replaced the TEI CRETE in 2019 (source: Hellenic Parliament). This is also mentionned in List of universities in Greece. - Guillaume Faye-Bédrin (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also !voted Keep, but to point out from WP:NLIST: Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable. Being included in a list doesn't justify a standalone article. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep universities established by statute per longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existing is not the same as notable. At the moment this looks like a promo piece. And no, "normal editing" will not suffice, as that never happens after an article is kept. The Banner talk 18:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article, at least as I am seeing it, qualifies as WP:PROMO. It gives factual details on courses and departments, and while there's definitely a WP:PROPORTION issue, this is not uncommon among articles of this type and interest, and would likely be resolved with further article expansion that, for example, details the reasons for the university's foundation, its history, and any notable staff. The bigger problem is the reliance on sources published by the university, but so long as independent sources can be shown to exist, I don't think this is so big an issue to require the article's deletion. In other words, the non-independent sources aren't doing any harm and can stay until someone takes enough interest in the topic to find better sources, or if they really are unpalatable, the article can always be cut back to one or two sentences only using independent sources. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm quite surprised by how quickly the delete !votes have been accepted here. The law mentioned in the article checks out (article 31). I took the university's name in Greek, and the first gsearch turned out quite a bit of coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It wasn't exactly hard to find these sources. Nonetheless, knowing nothing about the Greek language, I feel I can offer little more comment than to say that this university clearly exists and has been covered in multiple Greek newspapers as well as Greek law. It's also worth remembering that it's only been around 5 years, half of which were through Covid, which might explain why we might expect a few more sources than perhaps are immediately visible. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Sources raised by @IgnatiusofLondon look strong and support WP:NUNI per previous comments. Article could use some clean-up, though.

TLA (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WVDM-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not contain the significant coverage to meet the GNG. This technically survived a bulk AfD last year but that was more about other stations in the nomination than this one. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United States of America, Illinois, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another run-of-the-mill 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate station without anything that could possibly even lead to significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. would be the best choice.TH1980 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Bhatia[edit]

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

non-notable, advertorial User4edits (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. User4edits (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, Linked-in style resume. Zero coverage in any sort of RS, or in much of any source really. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 00:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zig & Sharko#Spin-off. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Bernie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to Zig & Sharko#Spin-off. Contested BLAR, unreferenced, a BEFORE turns up nothing of use. ^Queen of _Hearts 13:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France. ^Queen of _Hearts 13:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I couldn’t see anything suggesting notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Anciano[edit]

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are database records and BEFORE found promo, database records, nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 13:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No penalty against a future article that is adequately sourced being written in Draft space and submitted to WP:AFC Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triton-1[edit]

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

The article structure does not comply with MOS, it has no source, notability is questioned, or it could be Hoax. Vitaium (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Engineering, Technology, Transportation, Azerbaijan, and Russia. Vitaium (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the submarine itself is a hoax (https://ar.culture.ru/en/subject/triton-1m, ru:Подводные лодки проекта 907 «Тритон-1М»), but it may not meet WP:GNG and the article content is dubious. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT without prejudice to being re-created in the spirit of Glazerr's proposal below. The submarine is real, but the current stub doesn't adequately describe it and isn't directly supported by the referenced source or sources mentioned here. PaulT2022 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better solution would be to move the article to Triton Swimmer Delivery Vehicle or Triton Diver Mobility Vehicle, and expand the scope to include Triton-1m and Triton-2. There's no question as to the existence of Triton-1, and most of this article is verifiable anyways: [7]http://www.hisutton.com/Triton-1.html [8]https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/907.htm Glazerr (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Single source, thoroughly confused. There are ruwiki pages
- ru:Подводные лодки проекта 907 «Тритон-1М»
- ru:Подводные лодки проекта 908 «Тритон-2»

Possibly Triton-1 also makes sense, per sources found by Glazerr. - Altenmann >talk 00:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Desportivo de Basquete de Leça[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years, only mentions seen as refs, nothing found on pt.wiki JMWt (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Portugal. JMWt (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also goes by the shorter name GDB LECA. Seems to be currently playing in the third tier according to their Eurobasket.com profile but did play in the second tier for a few seasons. The profile only has info back to 2012 but the club was founded in 1972. A quick Google search turns up some match reports but I didn't dig around for long. Not familiar enough about Portugues media to know where to look. Alvaldi (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's currently zero sources in the article, and a Google news search finds two sources, one of which is arguably passing. I dont see how that meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete functionally per Bearian. Searching for sources myself has not been fruitful, but I don't speak or read the language in question, so it's possible sourcing exists but we just can't see it. That doesn't convince me an unsourced article marked as such since 2009 warrants remaining in mainspace, however. —Sirdog (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Moule[edit]

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

This BLP about a headteacher is sourced to Debrett's, which is considered reliable, to Who's Who, which is in the list of perennial sources as unreliable, and to his articles in the HuffPost, which is not an independent source. I have not been able to find references to add. The article does not meet WP:THREE, and I don't think Moule is notable according to WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is the best I could find, he made changes to the school's crest and ppl didn't like it [9]. Delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Functionally agree with Oaktree b. All sourcing for the subject is in relation to him being Warden of Radley College during XYZ event, but they don't seem to satisfy SIGCOV for him specifically. —Sirdog (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom., Who's Who does not show presumed notability and headmasters are not inherently notable. No sign he passes WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as of yet. Lorstaking (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zentrum für soziale Entwicklung und Selbsthilfe Perspektive[edit]

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

No refs on the page - and few substantial edits to it - for many years. I don't speak German but I'm not finding anything much which would point to notability, interested if anyone else can. JMWt (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Germany. JMWt (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎ to allow improvements to be made. ✗plicit 14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Little Konzett[edit]

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

Rejected at AFC largely unsourced, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Theroadislong, I understand you're looking at deleting this article. I am afraid I may have been lied to? I received an email from someone claiming to be a wikipedia editor cleaning up old articles which have been rejected. he, (now i see, recently someone edited or published my article, under the handle of "BradKins" said he'd edit my page to help it meet Wikipedia's standards. I thought this would be good, that an 'official' Wikipedia editor would improve the article. Now I see your message that the article is nominated for deletion. I remember you, Theroadislong, as you'd reviewed my article a couple of years ago. I do understand the reasons you think the article does not yet meet notability, but it is a work in progress, and I am always seeking new, valid press to validate the worthiness of this article. Please advise. Thank you kindly, Beth 2A02:1210:4AB8:4C00:597C:3125:BFD1:EAF4 (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikishovel: In an edit summary[10] it was claimed "Wikishovel approved this page". Perhaps you would like to chime in here... Fram (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel: Ping again. Fram (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been duplicated here Manfred “Little” Konzett. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had no involvement with this article, as the edit history shows, and this is not the first time that User:BradKins has pulled this stunt. I'll take this to WP:ANI, thanks for the ping.

As for the emailed offer of "help", a sockfarmer used my name in a similar scam last November, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#User Wikishovel asking for money to publish our company. I cost these parasites money pretty regularly.

@Beth Wimmer: you posted a response at your user talk page ten minutes ago, similar to the anonymous response above: was that you? If so, please log back in, thanks. It looks like you may be the victim of a scam. Were you asked for money for the "help" with the article? Wikishovel (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Wikishovel Yes, both of those responses were from me. I had responded without logging in, then noticed I should have logged in so you'd know it was really me.

Yes, I was asked to contribute money for the improvements Bradkins wanted to make. I have contributed money to Wikipedia before, officially, so the word contribute didn't worry me. The email I'd received sounded very official. I'm sorry for this trouble, this is upsetting for me. Beth Wimmer (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've done nothing wrong, and the emails used for these scams can be quite persuasive. Please don't blame yourself for this, it can very easily be put right. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, @Wikishovel, I greatly appreciate your concern and experience regarding this worry. Beth Wimmer (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I observed the reasons of the AfC rejection. It should be deleted failing for no RS per WP:N

CSMention269 (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what exactly does this comment mean, please? Thank you, Beth Beth Wimmer (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on CSMention269, it says this page does not exist. Is @CSMention269 also a scam? Thank you, Beth Beth Wimmer (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new here, joined in Dec 2023. How could you say that I don't have a info page means I'm a scam? You make me laugh! CSMention269 (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, article creator is being scammed, so let's let AfC take its usual course. Wikishovel (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good practice @Wikishovel, but are you sure about this even after several declines followed by rejection of it? We can still do that if the user promises to improve the page by with complying our guidelines to avoid further declines. CSMention269 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A move back to draft should be contingent upon no further attempts to submit without substantial improvement. All previous AfC templates, including the rejection, should also be restored. If no substantial improvements can be made to the rejected draft within 6 months, it will be speedy deleted as G13. Wikishovel (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do promise to make substantial improvement on the article, and won't attempt to submit until I have done so. @CSMention269, I'm sorry if I offended you with the comment that perhaps your profile name was a scam. I was confused by your name not having an info page, and being in red color. You mention you've only joined Wikipedia two months ago. I noticed on your talk page that you've had several articles already published. That's impressive. Perhaps you'd be willing to also contribute to/edit the article I created, to help it meet Wikipedia's standards. Thank you everyone, Beth Wimmer (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify: Page made by blocked user, largely unreferenced, and possibly unnotable. Unless more reliable sources are found (See Wikipedia:DISCOGS), I'll choose to delete it. ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- vote* to delete it. ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I've been at work most of the day, but I have found some new, reliable sources to cite. Please don't vote to delete this article. I can work on it and improve the notability. It is my first article on Wikipedia and as you know, it takes time to get things right. Thank you, Beth Wimmer (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I'll also get rid of the DISCOGS links. I've seen the link you mentioned. Fair enough. Beth Wimmer (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the article creator hasn't been blocked, but the account that moved it to main space has. Wikishovel (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Primary sourcing or non-RS used now in the article, and I can't find much else for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also @Wikishovel: My plan is to remove the newspaper articles cited where one would need to login to read the reference. I have found new press to validate this subject. Please give me more time. You know, I have loved and supported (financially) Wikipedia for years. Why would you not approve of an article about a self-taught, internationally appreciated person who works with legendary musicians and uses old-fashioned analog methods of recorded included on Wikipedia? When I see other articles written about rather unnotable people, which have passed. for example (hoping not to offend anyone): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Jones_(musician)

How is this article any better or more valid than the one I've created?

Please wait and see until I remove the Liechtenstein Vaterland citations, and add some new, valid referencing. I'm trying my best. I am not a criminal. :) Thank you, Beth Wimmer (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want you to know that you should probably see Wikipedia:WAX. Basically, another article's existence shouldn't be used to support an article proposed to be deleted. In fact, the article that you linked should be deleted. ''Flux55'' (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you, i read it. Beth Wimmer (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper references are not necessarily a problem. Secretlondon (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information, @Secretlondon, but i realize some of the newspaper articles cited for reference in the article require a profile/login to read them. That is a bit pesky, no? Thank you, Beth Wimmer (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are probably reliable sources, which you are short of. Secretlondon (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Asterix#In popular culture. Consensus to merge into Asterix#In popular culture. It can be further discussed in the talk page outside AfD if appropriate. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix on postage stamps[edit]

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

Lacks notability as a separate topic (and no obvious redirect target), unsourced and abandoned article. Prod was removed because "Being featured on postage stamps is a pretty huge honor for any topic, as such the topic asserts notability," but while the fact that Asterix postage stamps have been made shows the (undisputed) notability of Asterix, the indicated lack of notability is for the topic of this list, "Asterix on postage stamps" as a whole. Fram (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not difficult to verify that the stamps genuinely exist, but there's nothing much else to say about them. I have some sympathy with the de-prodder's argument that being on a national postage stamp is inherently notable. As a compromise, could we merge this into the main Asterix article? I'm not sure where; it's not really "popular culture". We need an Asterix-beyond-the-books section. Elemimele (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At first glance it seems like an easy fail of guidelines for cross-intersecting - Asterix and stamps - but it's not as straightforward. Consider the section Asterix#In popular culture where the stamps certainly would merit inclusion, more so than several of the entries therein. Merge the verifiable bits to Asterix#In popular culture, if that section is even desirable? Geschichte (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Asterix or Merge with Tintin on postage stamps and rename to Fictional characters on postage stamps - Not sure I really grasp the dePROD comment. Being featured on a stamp is a clear indication of the notability of Asterix, but I don't see how this creates any notability for Asterix on postage stamps. As an example, a quick search found that Louis Braille has been commemorated on stamps by multiple countries, including France, Belarus, India and Russia. I strongly disagree however that Louis Braille on postage stamps should be created or kept on Wikipedia because of this. The article should stand on its own notability: substantial coverage in reliable sources of stamps featuring Louis Braille. I would suggest merging either to Asterix#In popular culture as per Geschichte (talk · contribs), or merging alongside Tintin on postage stamps into a new article about fictional characters on postage stamps, however I don't know if such a topic is sufficiently notable. Shazback (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Asterix#In popular culture - While a subject being featured on a national postage stamp likely demonstrates that the subject itself is notable, that does not mean that the topic of "Subject on Postage Stamps" is, by itself, a notable topic on it its own. As mentioned above, its easy to verify that these stamps were issued, but not significant coverage discussing the phenomenon of Asterix being featured on postage stamps as its own subject, where a separate article would make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asterix#In popular culture without prejudice to retargeting to a different section if appropriate. It makes sense to cover these issues as a subtopic of Asterix not as a stand alone article. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asterix#In popular culture per others. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. ✗plicit 14:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUOC-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oklahoma. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, article is mostly unsourced and as said above does not meet WP:GNG. Endersslay (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Textbook HC2 diginet coatrack. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: or delete. Another run-of-the-mill DTV America/HC2/Innovate all-diginet station that only started in the 2010s without any significant coverage or the probability of any; another technical survivor of a bulk nomination last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agreement to delete is unanimous. The two suggesting redirect make no clear case for why a redirect is needed. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurso de Esperanto[edit]

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

Self promotional article. No sourcing from what Ive seen. GamerPro64 05:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. GamerPro64 05:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11. Tagged as such. popodameron ⁠talk 06:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was previously nominated for speedy delete. It got detagged by @Liz for it being made in 2005. GamerPro64 06:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, didn't notice it was that old. popodameron ⁠talk 06:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are various references in google books results to "kurso de Esperanto" but most seem to be about the generic sense or other Esperanto courses rather than this topic. (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above WeAreAllHere _talk 11:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quebec Esperanto Society: where it can be briefly mentioned based on our limited sources. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quebec Esperanto Society OwenX provides us with an ATD WP:CHEAP target. Lightburst (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hammond (politician)[edit]

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

Unnotable politician holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NPOL, could not find any notable coverage.Shaws username (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we usually delete mayors of small to medium sized cities. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 947 (radio station). Consensus for merging to radio station article, which can be further discussed outside AfD if appropriate. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cowen[edit]

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

Borderline, but I couldn't establish that Cowen meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Any WP:ATD, such as redirect to Come Dine With Me South Africa, wouldn't really be helpful to readers. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(selectively) Merge to 947 (radio station). She actually has a fair bit of coverage, (for her book [11][12] among other things [13]) but it's almost all in primary sources. Mach61 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known celebrity and radio presenter. Meets WP:GNG Coverage in secondary sources [14][15]. Longest running female morning radio show host in South Africa[16]. Sunday Times/Times Live [17] [18][19][20]. News24 [21] [22][23][24]. There's also lots of coverage around Jeremy Mansfield, but I've only added sources that cover her. I can look for more sources. Nominators for South African articles should at least search News24, TimesLive and IOL for coverage. Park3r (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Park3r Please read WP:NEWSPRIMARY, and select which, if any, of these sources are not primary sources. Mach61 (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSPRIMARY is an essay, not a policy. Furthermore even that essay identifies book reviews as secondary sources of which there are at least two above. Park3r (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They should also search The South African, every source mentioned by Park3r is secondary and the first half are green sources. dxneo (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you should probably also do a formal keep vote if you believe the sources are reliable and the article is notable. Park3r (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed those sources before posting my !vote and then saw this. I disagree that these sources establish notability. All of the News24 sources are routine or run-of-the-mill coverage. 11 is a brief intro to a now unavailable "honest and open Facebook post." 12 and 13 are run-of-the-mill coverage noting her announcement that she was leaving 94.7. 14 is the same regarding 91.9. This and this are interviews and this is an excerpt from her book. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge to 947 (radio station)#Breakfast Show History: She's certainly a well-known radio personality in South Africa, and she has regularly received coverage in the media, but all of the coverage appears to be routine (such as announcements of her leaving a radio station), media stunts, or quoting her social media posts. I think redirecting to the above article is appropriate because she appears to be best associated with that show. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC), changed to merge per Mach61. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator merge to radio station does look like a good option. Boleyn (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. This might be a case of redirect with possibilities, where sufficient WP:RS coverage does exist, but hasn't been brought forward in the article or this AfD, or where we can assume (without wishing to violate WP:CRYSTALBALL) that other sources could emerge in the next few years that might just tip the subject into clearer notability. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Gaston[edit]

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

Unnotable politician holding unnotable offices in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Arkansas, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NPOL, could not find any notable coverage. Shaws username (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus for GNG and SIGCOV, with local coverage. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster City F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable club that hasn't competed in an FA cup competition Kivo (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Young club, there is some stuff online for them, but for me it's not enough I don't currently see GNG there. It maybe GNG in the far future if it lasts, however right now. Not enough sources for SIGNOV for me. Govvy (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's enough coverage to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 19:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many years ago I created articles for clubs playing in the Central Midlands League but they were deleted on notability grounds due to them having not played at step 6 or in a national cup competition. I tried to argue that the Central Midlands League/Alliance should be exempt from this because, unlike all other step 7 leagues, it covers several counties, and the league's geographical area was further expanded when it merged with the Midland Regional Alliance. However, this argument was dismissed and the articles were deleted. This AfD is the right time to have this conversation again and I would argue that the teams playing in the North and South divisions should be considered notable enough for their own articles, thereby meaning that this article would be kept. Rillington (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent local coverage, along with some national coverage - already referenced in the article. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given what I previously hinted about CMA articles being seen as notable, and given that this article contains many independent references, I want to make it clear that I am voting for this article to be retained. Rillington (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club that hasn't competed in an FA competition or at Step 6 of the NLS. If we are to allow RFL clubs to have articles, we have to allow ALL RFL clubs to have one. Kivo (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's the only reason for a potential delete but, as I said previously, I see the CMA as a special case due to it covering a much wider area than the other step 7 leagues which are all county leagues. This, to me, makes the CMA notable in a way that the other leagues are not for the purposes of each club having its own article on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The CMA does not cover a "much wider area" than other step 7 leagues – its footprint is not substantially different to some of the larger county leagues like Lincolnshire, Norfolk or Kent, and is probably smaller than that of the West Lancs League. It just happens to cross county boundaries (but is also not alone in doing so). Number 5 7 17:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule, User:Kivo, that a team has to be at Step 6 or have competed in an FA competition, to have an article. If a team of kindergartners is getting long-term significant coverage, then it would be notable. Step 6 and FA competitions are just guidelines; and better applicable to teams with years of history, often at higher levels than they are at now. With a relatively new team, we can simply look at media coverage, which is all still accessible online, unlike Royston Vasey Town F.C.'s brief foray into an FA competition in the 1920s, which is hard to find online references to. Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Kivo:, The difference betwen this club and other clubs is that this one ha salready received decent overage and will in the future as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "will in the future" is classic WP:CRYSTAL. Number 5 7 17:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The club seems to have generated some short-lived national coverage from a single event (the Scottish Cup stuff) but the rest is the kind of occasional coverage that even some Sunday league teams get in local newspapers. I would lean towards deletion on the basis of the Scottish Cup stuff falling under WP:NOTNEWS, without prejudice to re-creation if there is sustained coverage or the club manages to reach a notable level in future. Number 5 7 17:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG - while they did get a splurt of news coverage for their publicity stunt they do have sustained local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In English football there is normally WP:SIGCOV even for clubs in lower divisions, due to the arguments presented previously it is possible to determine notability. The fact that the club has not participated in an edition of the FA Cup does not seem to me to be a solid argument for deletion. Svartner (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Laminar Research. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Combat[edit]

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

No notable sourcing to this game. Was nominated for deletion all the way back in 2004 but didnt reach consensus. GamerPro64 04:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Spaceflight. GamerPro64 04:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laminar Research. Oh joy, a game with the most vague title of all time. And matching another 1989 game no less. I could not find anything of note, and the previous discussion was almost a pure vote with no sources named. However, the website can be used as a primary source to demonstrate it exists, hence the redirection. I am not sure Laminar Research is notable either outside of X-Plane, but right now it's the best target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above due to non-notable sourcing. As a comment, the 2004 deletion discussion is a fascinating window into the very different psychology of early Wikipedia policy. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I'll just post the discussion here for posterities sake. GamerPro64 04:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laminar Research as per above, unable to find any notable sources. Shaws username (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus met for NLIST and can be expanded further. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thai girl groups[edit]

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

Unreferenced; fails WP:NLIST. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Thailand. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the list of list-related discussions... one can't not appreciate that. We need more lists of lists of lists, though. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no indication of the inclusion criteria (which could be fixed), and importantly, there don't appear to be any sources linking these bands together. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not going to vote "keep" based on one source, but this peice from The Nation (Thailand) offers some evidence that Thai girl bands have been considered as a set (i.e meeting NLIST). Mach61 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amend my vote to Keep based on this journal paper (which can be translated), which is all about the history of Thai girl groups. Definitely meets NLIST Mach61 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Thai_girl_groups exist, with ten entries. If the list only had notable Thai girl groups, it'd be a valid list. Right now most of those with their own articles aren't on this list. Dream Focus 17:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mach61, or draftify until referencing is improved. It's a recognised grouping that's been extensively covered by sources. As for the selection criteria, per WP:CSC, I'd expect this list to be of the type "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." So every Thai girl group, blue-linked or not, should be included, as long as it's verifiable to a reliable source. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since it could be expanded upon using articles from Category:Thai girl groups. Some1 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot armor[edit]

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

Seems to be more of a How-To Article than a Wikipedia article. ‍ Relativity 20:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Fictional elements, and Literature. ‍ Relativity 20:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On August 18, 2020‎, I deleted a section of Plot device called "Plot armor" because it had been unreferenced for more than a year.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment The article is rather poor (though in fairness it was only created 12 minutes prior to the deletion nomination), but the concept is likely notable. That doesn't necessarily mean it should have a stand-alone article (might be better to cover it as part of some other article per WP:PAGEDECIDE), but it probably could. TompaDompa (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to bet myself a nickel that I can HEY this, per TompaDompa. It's a term in the common lexicon of modern popular media, so I'm almost certain that there is enough RS material out there to demonstrate notability. Expect improvements to come inside of 24 hours. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to warrant its own article. Might be worth reinserting section in plot device mentioned above but with a reliable source if findable. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft and improve. This is a highly notable trope in fiction, up there with the Mary Sue, but needs development to merit inclusion in mainspace. BD2412 T 00:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I'm not in the literary scene, the Wikipedia Library got me access to a handful of sources that provided rudimentary definitions and examples of this concept. While what I've added to the article right now is probably only just on the cusp of demonstrating GNG (mostly a question of SIGCOV), I'm now certain this is notable. For the references lacking links, please refer to the Wikipedia Library. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eh... I'm not convinced. The references amount to two literal dictionary definitions and a handful of sources that use the term as a descriptor. The expansion, though well intentioned, thus verges on original research. I'd want to see at least one reliable source that discusses the concept itself, in depth. Jfire (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Somers and McGowan sources provide more explicit definitions of plot armor. Additionally, usage of the term in academic texts suggests its notability. Without access to the OED definition, I don't have the citations that they may have used to provide their definition. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Pbritti I don't think those citations are likely to be useful for showing notability anyway, since the OED's business is to find the earliest possible example, not to point readers to the most in-depth sources. -- asilvering (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if not then draftify, notable trope also something of note the page was created at 20:03, 31 January 2024, it was AFDed at 20:15 the same day. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and improve. This concept needs several reputable sources. I am an amateur fiction writer, and I have never heard of this outside of Wikipedia.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pbritti has completely transformed this article. It is now encyclopedic and meets GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this. A few of the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS aren't much more than a WP:DICTIONARY definition, and most are barely related to the concept at all. I wouldn't object to draftifying, but this seems like a WP:TNT situation where there isn't much to preserve. The "Articles for Creation" process is a good idea, and this would be an example of what not to do. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article sourcing looks good to me. The article could also be expanded further with coverage of plot armor in interactive media. I find an entire chapter on plot armor, called "Plot Armor", in this book about role-playing games. The chapter itself is not in the free preview but it's listed in the table of contents; based on the author's discussion of fixed points in time here (a chapter that references the plot armor chapter) I believe it's a proper SIGCOV analysis of how the trope itself functions. There's also a page of analysis of plot armor on p 98 of this essay, also not readable to me right now. My search preview says "The only way Mercer could prevent queer death in Critical Role would be by giving certain characters Plot Armor, a trope where “a main character’s life and health are safeguarded by …" -- in context this section is leading up to a substantial analysis of character death, in which the plot armor trope will be examined for its narrative implications. In other words, both sources present analysis rather than trivial mentions. ~ L 🌸 (talk)
There are several other similar books that document this concept (and the similar plot immunity) but most appear to be self-published or come from publishers that don't possess formal editorial oversight. I refrained from using these sources when I expanded the article, preferring limited coverage in RSs. I wonder if there is SOGCOV in print texts from RS publishers that we're missing, though. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At this point, the sourcing is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the keep opinions before me, I see now enough sourced material for an article beyond a dictionary definition. Currently it is not a very long article, but no good merge target comes to mind. Daranios (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to protagonist, what is here is largely a dictionary definition. Generally speaking, "plot armor" tends to involve the protagonists escaping harm repeatedly because they are important to the story. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets notability and SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has decent sourcing, is a notable concept. It comes up a lot in discussions about media such as video games. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the massive improvements that have been made since the beginning of this discussion. On another note, nominating an article on a subject like this for deletion (that isn't promotion, spam, etc -- a topic which is mentioned and talked about pretty broadly, and which WP:BEFORE revealed a wealth of sources for) twelve minutes after its creation seems like rather bad manners to me. jp×g 🗯️ 03:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work put in by Pbritti. I concur with the assessment from BD2412 that this is functionally at the same (or near same) literary level as Mary Sue, and I'm satisfied with the present sourcing. I also echo the sentiments of JPxG that nominating an article for deletion within ~12 minutes of it's creation should generally be avoided for the future, barring the exceptions noted. —Sirdog (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus for keep per the new additions. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Ikechukwu[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NSPORT. I couldn't find any secondary reliable and independent sources about her. Aintabli (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, Nigeria, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per improvements made by @CeeGee. Svartner (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I've extended the article. Please check before it's going deleted. Thanks. CeeGee 12:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most appears to be routine/transfer news - where is the potentially significant coverage, beyond this which is still not ideal and certainly not enough on its own. Giant Snowman 17:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I^ve expanded slightly, and added two more references. Will they help? CeeGee 08:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added, although I'm still not 100%. Giant Snowman 09:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some decent stuff from WP:NGRS.

TLA (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The sense of the discussion was that while the subject potentially had a claim to notability, the existing sourcing did not provide significant coverage to validate the claim. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohinder Kaur Midha[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE only shows her appointment as the mayor WP:BLP1E? Fails NPOL and GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, United Kingdom, and England. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read it properly. References have been provided for each claim. You are merely targeting articles that belong to Dalits. Clearly, you are racist and casteist. Dev Mahey (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Mahey, Please see WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith. Baselessly making accusations of racism and casteism is a quick way of getting blocked. Curbon7 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL - She is the first lady of Dalit origin who was elected as mayor of any council in England. Have a look at independent sources from different news articles.

https://www.thequint.com/south-asians/mohinder-midha-elected-first-dalit-woman-mayor-uk

https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/in-mohinder-midha-s-victory-a-watershed-moment-for-the-uk-101657898971258.html

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/mohinder-k-midha-is-uks-first-dalit-woman-mayor-398111 Dev Mahey (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mohinder Kaur Midha passes NPOL. According to WP:POLOUTCOMES(explanatory essay), Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Right now, the article only mentions, 'Mohinder Kaur Midha was the former Mayor of the London Borough of Ealing'. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources are routine news articles with no significant coverage apart from the Hindustan Times article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could be a claim to notability based on being the first Sikh to hold the position, but without sourcing, there is no article. Coverage is scant and none in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Could not find sources outside of her being the first female Dalit mayor in the UK, which like Oaktree b said, could be a claim to notability, but it is rather specific and I do agree with Jeraxmoira's WP:BLP1E assertion. Not to mention that the only keep vote here is from a blocked sockmaster casting WP:ASPERSIONS, so their comments should really be discounted. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could be wrong, but I think non-elected mayors of London Borough Councils are little more than ceremonial mayors serving one-year terms in rotation, whereas council leaders are the ones with real executive power. In WP:POLOUTCOMES (which Jeraxmoira cited above), this would then be more akin to In general than Mayors, and so the subject would be even less likely to meet common AfD outcomes. I think the subject is worth a sentence in Ealing London Borough Council, maybe even British Indians, as the first Dalit woman to become a UK mayor, but I'm afraid I don't think WP:NPOL is met. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brückner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no sources per WP:GNG, does it fail WP:NACTOR. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject is a very notable German voice actor who also has a minor career in film and television. He is the subject of a 45-minute documentary and has won numerous awards. Lack of sources does not automatically mean lack of notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources cited, it needs more English reliable sources. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does need sources but they exist and they don’t have to be in English. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly sure I understand the nomination: is it a question? There's a template on the page inviting to expand with the German article. Did the nominator have a look? Brückner has received numerous awards as voice actor (for audiobooks) and part of it is sourced with independent coverage. Keep (and expand). I might do it but not just now. (Only added 2 sources, taken at random, to remove the unsourced BLP tag) The article does not need to be as long and detailed as the German one but can be fairly developed with the numerous existing sources.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC) (Note: A lot of coverage you will find first is about a German or Austrian criminal with the same name in the context of the Maddie McCann case; not connected, of course. You might want to perform a search with "-Maddie -McCann")[reply]
Only the suspect's article it related to WP:BLP1E for Madeleine McCann. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not related. Please read the 2 existing !votes again carefully, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Flawed nomination. The user asks for English sources, yet all three of their sentences consist of English with incorrect grammar, to the point that their follow-up questions are difficult to comprehend. This comment is not in mean spirit, only highlighting that it's in our best interest to understand eachother. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like there are sources, two on the page at present, highly likely others exist. JMWt (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speedy close of nomination. The nominator is a sockpuppet of SwissArmyGuy, who is in turn indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. — Maile (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, opinion remains split between keeping and draftifying, but no one is suggesting that this content needs to be deleted outright, or that the subject is either devoid of current documentation, or unlikely to become unequivocally notable. BD2412 T 02:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Halifax municipal election[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a future election that there's just nothing of any real substance to say about it yet. The election is scheduled for October, which means absolutely nothing is happening with relation to the election yet as of January -- none of the races have any declared candidates yet, and with just a handful of exceptions even the incumbent mayor and councillors haven't announced whether they're running again yet or not, and we're months away from even being able to identify any of the issues that people will be basing their votes on.
Future "next" election articles are permitted at the federal and provincial levels, because there are always things for such an article to write about -- ongoing polling on the performance of the incumbent government, scandals, by-elections, and on and so forth -- but at the municipal level we just don't start articles about future elections until much, much closer to election day, because there just isn't anything meaningful to say about them, beyond "this is a thing that will happen", until much, much closer to election day. As of right now, the only other future municipal election in all of Canada that has an article at all is the imminent mayoral by-election in Mississauga, where we have actual known candidates and polling to write about, and even if the exact date is still up in the air we know that it has to happen by the spring at the latest.
So this can certainly be sandboxed in draft or userspace as a base, if the creator wishes, but there's no need for it to exist as an article until there's a lot more content to write about it than just "incumbent has not yet announced whether they're running again or not" over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax Regional Council: while this doesn't qualify as WP:CRYSTAL, the nom is right about TOOSOON. There is no encyclopedic information about this now, and not much is likely to turn up before October 2024. There's no need to keep the page as a placeholder until then. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I'd expect there to likely be meaningful content for an article by about July or August rather than literally having to wait until election day. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Until more news comes out about the thing, likely this spring, probably in summer for sure. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's going to be notable at some point, it's very very likely to happen, and there's enough sourcing at the moment where an article may be justified. Can't really argue to keep it out of mainspace for a few months. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The election is later this year so it should be notable enough for an article. User:Moondragon21 (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator) – most (65%) of the incumbents have announced whether or not they will run again, so I don't think the above characterisation of the existing article is quite accurate. I already find it useful as a reference as to who is re-offering and who is not. I appreciate the concern about this article being premature or lightweight and will keep that in mind when creating articles in the future. But in this case – news outlets are already coming out with pieces on this election, so the article may as well remain to be built upon in the coming months. Ben MacLeod (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the arguments above aren't doing a lot to persuade me P&G-wise, relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as this will clearly be notable within six months (the WP:G13 timer). There is not SIGCOV currently, and anyone advocating to keep this article should be able to point to some. "It will be notable" is not a reason to keep an article, because it is not notable at the current moment. But drafts need not be notable, and given that this article will certainly be notable in the not-too-distant future, incubating is the best way forward. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 21:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus not established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: per OwenX, Oaktree b, and HouseBlaster. This will be notable in short time, but there's no reason for a mainspace article until there's actually significant coverage of the election. Until then, once draftified, I think redirecting to Halifax Regional Council makes sense. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Global article that's been referenced is significant coverage of the election. No one objects when the Toronto election article is created 15 months before the election there. This one is a lot sooner than that! Like it or not, there is news already about the election, and the plans of most of council. -Nfitz 03:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until more sources become available. There is no harm done in keeping it in draft space until we see WP:SIGCOV. Pretty much all sources right now are about candidates announcing if they are running for reelection or not, not about the election itself. Some of the arguments for keeping it are personally not very convincing (WP:TOOSOON, WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ITSUSEFUL...). AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely WP:TOOSOON, but in the month that this article has been going through AfD, at least two further news articles (incorporated into the article) have been released on the election, I think in response to the mayor announcing that they would not stand for reelection. It's each to their own as to when "enough coverage is enough coverage", but I'm minded to think that said threshold will be met sooner rather than later, and I don't really see the usefulness of bouncing the article to draft and then back to mainspace in the time until then. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draim arena[edit]

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

I can find no coverage at all of this game, which was evidently not a success as the company closed within a year. It was also called "Draim Arena" in Swedish, so Swedish-language sources would theoretically be discoverable with that query. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Sweden. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. I prodded the company article too. Jfire (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My prod was contested, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draim. Jfire (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GamerPro64 04:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crispen Sachikonye[edit]

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

Marked for notability concerns since March 2022 and created by a single purpose editor so possibly promotional. I could not find significant coverage of him. Fails WP:BIO. The 2nd source provided is dead. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Zimbabwe. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del. No evince of notabilioty. - Altenmann >talk 04:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:SIGCOV

Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 20:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Educational consultant. All commenting expressed concern that sourcing failed to support a standalone article, and the target page seems appropriate as the organization was already mentioned as noted in the discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Educational Consultants Association[edit]

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

There are not enough verifiable sources to establish the notability of this education association. Although it seems to be an established and reputable organization, the only articles I could find about it were promotional in nature and outdated, such as this one: [25]. The association has been briefly mentioned by some major outlets in the past, [26] or [27], but that alone does not satisfy the notability criteria. There is no need to have a separate article about this organization, especially with the current, heavily promotional tone. Perhaps, if there is any relevant and useful information, it could be merged into the article of Educational consultant. Chiserc (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United States of America. Chiserc (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Educational consultant. I did a brief search of my own and came up with similar results. I don't see sufficient references to justify a stand alone article. The group is mentioned in the educational consultant article, so a redirect there would be fine too.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are 54 articles by the NY Times, so there might some useable articles. 1keyhole (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Educational consultant: Sources I found, including NYT, Washington Post and many others, are interviews/comments by the organization and generally advice pieces about getting into college or selecting a consultant. There are flurry articles in the March 2019 time frame due to the Varsity Blues scandal but those are essentially the same. S0091 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Educational consultant per nom and valid points made by S0091. The article is also painfully promotional. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Angelito Gatlabayan. ✗plicit 00:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josefina Gatlabayan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. The subject is the vice-mayor of a city of under 1 million people with no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Author deleted PROD and added more sources. JTtheOG (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~This article shall not be deleted, as it was supported by news articles that will sustain the legitimacy of the subject person. AtorniYormeJKLlamera (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You will have to be more specific than that. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I hereby request for all Wikipedia articles about government and politics IN THE PHILIPPINES, including elections, to be verified and checked ONLY by the Filipino Wikipedia authors, as we know more of the topics to be discussed. Some of our news in early 2000 to early 2010 were not posted online. AtorniYormeJKLlamera (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- AtorniYormeJKLlamera, that's not how this works. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Therefore, I hereby request for thorough reading and checking of this article before considering the deletion of it. Shall delete, it must have valid reason for deletion. Consider checking the articles and election results that will prove that the subject is legitimate and she is a duly elected public official. AtorniYormeJKLlamera (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The issue is not whether she is an elected public official. The sources in the article confirm this. However, since the subject is a local politician, she is not inherently notable for winning her election, and must instead meet WP:GNG. Filipino Wikipedia editors are more than welcome to find and present any sources that cover Gatlabayan directly and in detail in order to satisfy this guideline. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with you, but it is wrongful to say that she is not qualified mainly because she is a local politician. In province of Rizal, she is notable because her spouse (mentioned in article), who has separate Wikipedia article is a former mayor and congressional representative Therefore I hereby request Filipino Wikipedia editors to carefully review and check this article and state the valid reason/s why this article should be deleted. AtorniYormeJKLlamera (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I did not say "she is not qualified mainly because she is a local politician". I said that this does not make her inherently notable, and she must instead meet WP:GNG. Her spouse being notable does not make her notable, either. Please provide sources that cover Gatlabayan directly and in detail if you wish to keep this article. JTtheOG (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angelito Gatlabayan, her husband. Fails WP:NPOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 02:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angelito Gatlabayan and tag as "R from spouse". The article's notability isn't proven yet. Note that AtorniYormeJKLlamera was indef blocked as a sockpuppet. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous votes. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angelito Gatlabayan: Per WP:INHERIT. Barely found anything about her aside from the incident where she was a target of unidentified men during a campaign back in 2004. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Press[edit]

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

It's been tagged as no sources since 2017, and an additional search of a local news database also had no hits. Fails WP:SIGCOV. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 15:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 15:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What do You think about this piece? --Ouro (blah blah) 17:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding something, but it looks like a single sentence about the publishing company, the rest is about an unrelated book the publisher wrote. I think that falls under 'trivial passing mention.' ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 17:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I altered my search parameters and found this interview with a long-standing blog, a mention here and another mention in the same publication I first found. None of these are awesome, but maybe together they could count for something? --Ouro (blah blah) 17:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the article contradicts itself as to the date of the first publication. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think it would make more sense to make an entry focused on Mike Savage instead and just redirect this to a section on the publishing company, since he looks pretty prolific. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 20:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I followed Your train of thought, but in all honesty thoroughly searching for reviews of his Alphonse 'Dave' Davecki series of superior mystery book that seem to follow a sort of series brought up a total of zip reviews other than the mentions I have already found. While he may be prolific there's nothing going for that except for the blurbs in his books. What You found is actually from his own book, from his own publishing house, so isn't exactly a reliable source for WP. Maybe You'll have better luck or will just plain find something. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent coverage found so far falls well short of WP:ORGDEPTH required under NCORP. Yes, there's mentions in blogs but no WP:SIGCOV of the business, Savage Press. Rupples (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only article I found with information about the company was "Small publishers survive, but don't thrive in Duluth, Minn." in 2004 (ProQuest 462151451) but it relies on Mike Savage's comments. S0091 (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Thompson (journalist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an arts journalist, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to show external validation of their significance: notable journalism awards, third-party coverage and analysis about their work in sources independent of their own employer, and on and so forth. But seven of the eight footnotes here are just her own work metaverifying its own existence (or formerly metaverifying its own existence, because now it's all dead links across the board), and the last one is a MySpace (!), meaning that absolutely none of them represent GNG-building coverage about Laura Thompson.
Again, you don't get a journalist over the bar by citing sources where she's the bylined author of coverage about other things, you get a journalist over the bar by citing sources where she's the written-about subject of coverage authored by other people, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have that kind of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any coverage of the sort that's required for WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arts, Music, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mach61 (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be draftified on request from people who are seriously intending to work on it. Sandstein 08:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frezy Al Hudaifi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; the only example of significant coverage in an independent source is the cited Pontianak Tribun profile, coverage online is otherwise minimal or else non-independent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:AtD. Svartner (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis would you say that there's potential for an article here? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a footballer with the potential to become international for the Indonesia national football team, as he was called up for the U20 squad until last year. A draft process would be fair before deletion. Svartner (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rugby League Conference. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 08:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North West Merit League[edit]

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

Very minor amateur RL league which only existed briefly. Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage exists. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information with Rugby League Conference then redirect. Mn1548 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Farias[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT, this young man doesn't seem to me to be a suitable subject of a Wikipedia article. Basically teenager goes missing and is found 8 years later. Slightly unusual event, but with no lasting consequences. Sionk (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The potential ramifications of this case are ongoing. It is also linked to in other wikipedia articles including that of Quannel X to contextualise their current activism. Also it does not seem to be a case of "goes missing and then turns up" as the entire issue is about if he was missing at all, if he was assaulted, what role his mother played in this and any potential responsibility of the Houston PD. While this may not be a hot button case any longer making the waves I think that is an important reason to leave it up. That way any information and updates can be collated and more easily accessed. 110.21.186.111 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is Quannel X? Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I see no evidence that the "potential ramifications of this case are ongoing", and I cannot find any substantive coverage in reliable sources outside of local news (viz. WP:AUD) beyond information from around the date of the incident. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not an event of sufficient significance. It's a one off event without sustained and significant coverage or impact. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see why he's notable, could perhaps write an article around the disappearance, but that's likely not more notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Harry[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - if the band was positively reviewed in Time Out (asserted but not cited), as well as touring internationally, there are likely other sources out there to push it through WP:N. Llajwa (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a couple newspaper sources. They certainly had at least two European tours and apparently were a hit in Switzerland and appeared on Czech television. S0091 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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