Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 31	June 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of July 19, 1917

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

FAIL GNG. This time it happened in a small area near Antarctica, and it was unlikely that anyone saw him at the time, so he violated gng and should reordered. Q 𝟤 𝟪 23:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Q 𝟤 𝟪 23:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century where the relevant information is already stored. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree with mom that this fails GNG. There is only one ref, with questionable reliability. Might as well redirect to another relevant page. I would also be fine with deleting, although I think redirecting is probably a better option. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century as a WP:ATD: general consensus is that future eclipses that do not meet WP:GNG/WP:NASTRO like this one should be redirected. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, seems the best option. Cinadon36 09:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Curry Law

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

A niche Indian film that doesn't seem to have enjoyed much popularity, it's also hard to find signed reviews of this film (the only one I've come across is from Times of India). Maybe a better expert on Indian cinema will correct me, but in my opinion the film doesn't meet notability treshold. Marcelus (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Marcelus (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found two more reviews: https://urbanasian.com/reviews/chicken-curry-law-review-good-concept-but-poor-execution/ and https://www.mumbailive.com/amp/en/bollywood/movie-review-chicken-curry-law-with-makrand-deshpande-and-ashutosh-rana-38372 Kailash29792 (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this thread stems from the recent controversy over an actress in one of the lead roles who exaggerated her accomplishments? The article should stand though. This is simply one of many Indian movies that have floped and received negative reviews. However, it featured a fairly well-known actor in an important role, and people with established track records were involved in preparing the soundtrack. It's normal practice for these types of movies to have their articles in Wikipedia, not because of the activities of an actress trying to artificially increase her popularity. 31.61.160.173 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: with additions, it seems notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has coverage in strong RS such as The Times of India, and Indian Express (itself a WP:RS/P). Decently written so merits keeping. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the RS WP:NFSOURCES Bruxton (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etranger di Costarica

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

The cited sources are store opening announcement (WP:ROUTINE), Interview and company website. Searches in English and Japanese only found promotional pieces or trivial mentions, does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this was purely on English sources it would be a delete, but I cannot vouch for Japanese sources? Not sure how to solve this, but feels like it is only a few stores. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there seems to be nothing WP:SIGCOV about the place mentioned. The first source is just a description of the place and what it sells, and the second source is an interview with one of the staff of the shop, which would not be an independent source per WP:GNG. The third source is just a directory of places. Tirishan (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth sources,fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robbi Sapinggi

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

A subject whose heroic, but minor role, in the 2015 Sabah earthquake seems a case of WP:BIO1E. I PRODed the BIO but it was removed in favor of a fuller discussion, so I have brought it to AfD. Outside of his act, there is almost zero RS on the subject (and zero pre-the-act). Unfortunately, can't see his BIO as being something that will be preserved long-term in Wikipedia, however, I bring it to the community to decide. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage I find is all from the time of the incident in 2015, nothing seems to have had a long-lasting effect. Notability before the event is almost zero. One article in the Straights times about his wife finding out about his accident, rest are about his funeral; likely not at GNG at this point.

Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom a case of WP:BIO1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WUCU-LD

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

It seems hard to imagine that a now-defunct one-year low-power television station that only carried national programming, owned by a company that owns many such stations, could come anywhere close to meeting the GNG. This was previously part of a bulk nomination of many Innovate Corp./HC2-associated TV stations' articles earlier this year, which failed largely because it was too bulky (and intermingled stations much like this one with co-owned stations that nonetheless have longer and/or more-verifiable histories); the articles nominated in it were exempted from any standard post-close waiting periods. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles like this one are why I tried to send 140 at once to AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources in the article don't appear to help with notability nor could I find any, so looks like GNG is not met. Rupples (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JB Tower

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

Non-notable unbuilt building. Not finding any sources other than routine announcements. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source in the article that links correctly is to the Emporis database. JB operates in India. Don't know how serious this Dubai project was. Haven't found any coverage, but not ruling out its existence. As things stand doesn't pass GNG. Rupples (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EP 07 Tower

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

Also nominated: EP 09 Towers

Two articles on unbuilt buildings from the same development that have no clear evidence of notability. The first article cites only one useful source, which is a combination of a routine announcement and an interview, neither of which count. The second is wholly unsourced. My search for sources is not proving any more fruitful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG for either building. Suonii180 (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: EP 09 Towers is a former WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Agree with the nominator re the article references. One for EP7 One Park Avenue is an interview with the architect extolling the Tower's virtues and is thus not independent. Thought there may be something about the energy efficiency concepts highlighted in the interview in independent sources but didn't find any. Significant coverage not found, so have to conclude both articles fail the GNG. Rupples (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cheyenne broadcast translators

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

Strange article without an obvious purpose or precedent. This consists entirely of a list of broadcast relay stations (i.e. transmitters that rebroadcast another signal instead of originating their own programming) in one individual media market which then proceeds to link to the stations that actually provide the programming — with the added bonus that the article explicitly states that the boundaries of the market have been subjectively chosen to include some outlying areas and exclude other outlying areas for no obvious, objective or reliably sourced reason. Basically this seems to exist as a content fork of Media in Cheyenne, Wyoming, meant entirely to provide an alternative view that the market includes Laramie and excludes Scottsbluff, without sourcing to actually support that view, even though the main article says the exact opposite.
And indeed, no article anywhere in Wikipedia links to this at all (its only inbound is a redirect from another variant of the same title), because any possible link to any of the radio stations can always just go directly to the station itself rather than having to two-step its way through this.
No other city anywhere in the United States (or the world) has a "List of City broadcast translators" as a separate topic from its "Media in City", and there's no real indication here of why Cheyenne's translators would need special treatment that other cities' translators aren't getting. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Wyoming. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Several Journeys of Reemus

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability challenged since 2012. Sources appear to be mostly user-generated with no corresponding RS. One previous AfD w/ no consensus. It's time to take another look. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG, and 90% of the thing is plot summary. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. (non-admin closure) Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 23:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baoshan (given name)

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

I’m nominating this page for deletion today based primarily off of WP:GNG, lack of a coherent subject, and intractable WP:SYNTHESIS issues, the latter two of which can be folded into WP:TNT.

This is eligible for deletion under these criteria as this is not a disambiguation page; it is a anthroponymic set index list per MOS:DABNAME, and as such must follow GNG and WP:NLIST.

This fails NLIST on two counts; the first is that there is no substantial English-language coverage of the Baoshan given name. The second is that there is no one subject of Baoshan or of similar loci; this is why I discount any potential Chinese-language source.

The main problem here is that romanizations of Chinese do not have one-to-one correspondence with Chinese characters. Also, a particular romanization X may also appear in a different romanization, but instead representing a different sound; this is all before we take tones into account. We might also note that Chinese is not one language; it is better described as the Sinitic language family (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, etc.), and every character is pronounced differently and thus romanized differently even if thttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baoshan_(given_name)&action=edithe character itself is identical.

Indeed, all the articles listed here have different Baoshan transliteration origins.

As another analog, take common Chinese surnames; note common overlap in the end state of romanizations between romanization systems (the most common now are Hanyu Pinyin, Wade-Giles, and postal) and different languages of Sinitic. Any original language discussion of a particular given name, even in Chinese, would then be conflated with every other possible combination of romanizations, characters, and languages that would result in Baoshan. It is a many-to-many correspondence.

As such, the content and premise of this page is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS. It combines multiple forms of two-character Chinese given names and all English Baoshan romanizations into one; reliable sources doing this do not exist so far as I can see.

The similarity in Hanyu Pinyin romanization is an effect of how words are pronounced in Mandarin. Categorizing them into one English romanization is akin to fitting a square peg into a round hole; this is before we get into tone differences, which change meanings in and of themselves.

There has been no previous project discussion on pages like this—given names with ambiguous romanizations and variations in English without one-to-one-correspondence—that I could find, and certainly not in WikiProject Anthroponymy or in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles.

I’ll then address the criteria laid out in WP:CSC, mentioned in WP:SIA as a guideline, itself a sub-guideline of WP:SAL, itself a guideline and of course subordinate to GNG. This list plainly fails the “every entry in the list fails the notability criteria” and “short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group” criteria, so what remains is “every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.”

But then what is the list about? As established above, it’s about many things vaguely defined that don’t hold water in Sinitic or in English; they are not the same, and similarity occurs only in contrived English analogs.

The article in its current state shows the lack of focus. Every instance of Baoshan originates from different written characters. Baoshan itself is not and cannot be notable. We wouldn't have an article regarding lists of people whose name is pronounced Baoshan, much less a list of people whose names are transliterated Baoshan by chance. Chinese given names are also used only by people close to the named; the situation where people would search for the given name only is unlikely. Then w.r.t. whatever significance Baoshan carries as a meaning--it is disrespectful in Chinese to name someone after someone else. Any name collision is purely coincidental. The premise of this article is flawed; this article ought to be deleted. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per what I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mengjie, plus also no two of these names romanised as "Baoshan" are even the same name. Articles of this type can never be appropriate for the encyclopaedia, or basically even like an index. They're fundamentally misleading in addition to the other problems. Folly Mox (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the creator of this article, User:WikiOriginal-9 was for some time extremely fond of creating low quality forename disambiguation pages. The other two "Chinese given name" style pages I noted during a brief perusal of their history are Hongliang and Zhilin (given name), which like the article under discussion here do not even mention the people's real names in Chinese characters. @Iseult: can we bundle the two pages I mentioned in this AfD to save some time? Folly Mox (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox: I didn't bundle these because I don't want to risk that going down; seeing that you identified those two, I feel safe bundling these three and have done so. I intend to go through everything in the Chinese given name category and tailor each nomination to its own merits. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something about this discussion is really pulling asshole energy out of me in a way I'm evidently unable to prevent from manifesting. I don't like that, and will be stepping away from and unwatching this discussion after this edit. A note to the closer, who may not feel like clicking through to my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mengjie:

The article under discussion misrepresents three distinct Chinese names (寶山、保山、寶珊) as identical due solely to their romanisation – minus the lexically significant tone marks – in pinyin.
We already have a dabpage Baoshan, where the ==People== section consists solely of a link to the page under discussion, into which the three wikilinks present on Baoshan (given name) could easily be merged, and which should include the spellings of the people's names.
Chinese given names are not really a thing. As User:Mx. Granger notes somewhere in this discussion or the previous one linked above, maybe 建國 would meet the threshold for notability, and I would add possibly 延壽 to that list, but almost any word or binome can act as a given name. They are extremely variant, and almost never used nor seen in isolation.
"Baoshan", on its own, does not have a meaning, anthroponymically or otherwise. It is effectively the same as a pronunciation, not a word or term.
If a reader somehow remembers just the forename of a notable individual whose name includes somewhere in it words pronounced "baoshan", the existing dabpage or Wikipedia's search function can serve them better than the page under discussion, which misrepresents three topics as one.
All these arguments, in the general case, apply to the other two pages bundled in this AfD.

Folly Mox (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of Baoshan (given name), Hongliang, and Zhilin (given name), for exactly the same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mengjie. Each of these pages lists people with completely different given names that happen to be transliterated the same way (and only if you omit the tones). Baoshan (given name) includes the given names 宝珊, 宝善, and 宝山; Hongliang includes the given names 蕻良, 洪亮, and 宏良; and Zhilin (given name) includes the given names 之琳 and 志林. It is not worth splitting into articles about each given name because there is not much to say about each given name, for the reasons discussed at the previous AfD. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep all~~. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Chinese. It is irrelevant that they may be spelled differently and are different given names in Chinese, they share a common spelling in English. When English speakers search, this is what they want to find. Possibly rename Baoshan (transliteration) or Baoshan (transliterated given name). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Contrary to what the nominator claims, MOS:DABNAME does not apply (nor does it cite any rule that this list violates anyway): "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them." Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Baoshan and Zhilin to their respective dab pages. This should address most (all?) objections. Keep Hongliang because it doesn't have one. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is my position, and I believe that of previous commentators, that a) it is irrelevant that they happen to share a common spelling in English because these are by definition different given names that happen to share the same transliteration through quirks, as I have mentioned in my statement, and, indeed, as Clarity has already conceded: ...they may be spelled differently and are different given names in Chinese. And then indeed this commentator makes the mistake of conflating Mandarin with Cantonese; Rosamund Kwan, listed in Zhilin, has a Cantonese name transliterated as Kar Wai, even though Zhilin is the Mandarin Hanyu transliteration. So b) this article does not list people with certain particular given names, and so these lists do indeed violate the MOS. And, c), this commentator has not bothered to engage on the terms of notability. D), the seach argument runs afoul of WP:USEFUL and so not particularly appropriate. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: But what would be the basis for keeping? These topics clearly don't meet GNG, and indeed they are not really coherent topics, just lists of people with different given names that happen to be transliterated the same way when tones are omitted. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that this transliteration only takes into account Mandarin out of the many languages in the Chinese language family. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, these are disambiguation pages. And GNG does not apply to those. Clearly they serve as navigational aids. The above editor has redirected Ching (given name) to Ching He Huang, which is how I got into this discussion. Does that make sense? Not to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a way but these are not, and even if they are, have flaws pointed out by me, Granger, and @Folly Mox:. I made the redirect because I'm not one to delete when there are reasonable alternatives; the redirect target says, in the lede: ...often known in English-language merely as Ching. The body of the article is also consistent with this mononymous usage, referring to Huang merely as Ching. As such, it is reasonable to assume that someone searching just for Ching is referring to someone known only as Ching, and so I made the redirect. It is usually inappropriate to simply someone's given name from Ching He to Ching; that's not how Chinese works. Here, I assume, Ching went by that for convenience, and if sources bear that out, so be the redirect.Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is deleted, then the entries should to be added to the dab page Baoshan#People, which seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. There needs to be a place where users can find what they're looking for. Same for Ching, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: I'm fine, facially, with that DAB page, if the entries added there refer only to Mandarin given names romanized in Hanyu Pinyin. The problem is that these lists of Chinese given names are very misleading by their very setup; that's why I've put this here at AfD. Otherwise, Wikipedia search works fine. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does "facially" mean? And why would you restrict it to "Mandarin given names romanized in Hanyu Pinyin"? That's not how dab pages work. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By facially I mean something along the lines of at first glance, but there's a specific word that I'm thinking of that doesn't come to mind. Now, regarding DABs and keeping in mind your evident passion for them, I don't think that a DAB is essentially a catch-all; it's a directory of sorts of articles known commonly or appropriately (I say that with reference to, say, examples like WP:EN where regional/English-language naming prevails). As I've said in my statement, there are many name collisions between transliterations of different Sinitic languages and also within different transliterations of the same Sinitic language. I don't think it's appropriate to lump in someone like Rosamund Kwan who grew up with a Cantonese name speaking Cantonese and got her break in Cantonese acting in with other Zhilins just because her name happens to be transliterated that way into Mandarin and then into English via Hanyu Pinyin. Users can find what they are looking for via Wikipedia search, as the default result goes. We shouldn't mislead based off of a misunderstanding of fact and out of convenience. Indeed, as the page, Ching (given name), that you created goes, the lead result, which I redirected to page to as a primary topic, isn't even correct; Ching in and of itself is not Ching's given name. That would be Ching He. As an encyclopedia, we must not bow to English convenience when there are problems of WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, and WP:SYNTHESIS, as previously mentioned. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned about keeping a given name list per se. However, as I noted before, the entries do deserve to go in a dab page if the given name option is off the table. Same difference. That negates the GNG, NLIST and SYNTHESIS arguments. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a SAL by definition, so I don't see a negation. I don't see a SAL rebuttal to Folly Mox either, and we're never going to come to consensus on appropriateness for a DAB; however, I'll note that we're not in express dispute over the list as it is; so I guess I'll note for the closing admin that opposition to keeping these specific lists is constrained to a rework via a proper disambiguation. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Thanks for bringing up the disambiguation argument. I don't think these pages are very useful for disambiguation, for the reasons I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mengjie. Surname lists are often useful for disambiguation, because notable people are sometimes identified by their surname alone, so a reader might well search for a surname to find the article about the person, even if the reader doesn't know the subject's given name. But Chinese given names are rarely used alone, except in informal situations, so it is hard to imagine that a reader would search for "Baoshan" to find one of these people without knowing their surname. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except in informal situations. So they are used by themselves occasionally. "Hard to imagine" = not impossible to imagine. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I know I met second cousin Baoshan at the family reunion over New Year, but I can't remember if he manages a football team or works for the government..." Folly Mox (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Folly says, yes, really only in very casual-intimate situations where one knows the person in question personally. There's a cultural difference here that I don't think is quite translating. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clarityfiend it's not at all irrelevant that they're not the same name but happen to be romanised identically when tone marks are excluded: they're not the same topic. Would you have English words pronounced /tir/ (disambiguation)? Because the situation is exactly analogous. If people are indeed for some reason searching for just the given name of a notable Chinese individual who I guess they remember hearing one part of their name but don't have their full name accessible? The search function can return links to each article it matches. These terms are a disjoint set that share one common representation. Folly Mox (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that came out really snippy. Folly Mox (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the pronunciation, it's the spelling. This is the English Wikipedia, and we go by English spelling. If things are written the same, they go in the same dab page, regardless of how they're pronounced. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't English words and don't have an English "spelling": they're the pinyin romanisation – excluding tone marks, which are lexically significant – of three distinct Chinese spellings. By this rationale, if we were to give equal weight to Wade–Giles for some reason, we'd want a separate disambiguation page for "Pao-shan", linking the same three people. The only thing retaining this page, and others of its kind, will accomplish that using Wikipedia's search function will not accomplish, is to perpetuate the misconception that "Baoshan", on its own, means something. It doesn't. Pinyin is a lossy compression function, and doubly so when tones are discarded. Folly Mox (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also put it this way:

保山 (Baoshan) is also a city in Yunnan
寶山 (Baoshan) is also a township in Taiwan
寶珊 (Baoshan) is also a road in Hong Kong

If we want to have a dab page for every word romanised as "baoshan" that is attached to a notable topic, I guess that might make sense, but limiting it to just anthroponymy is misleading, and any such dabpage should be organised by the spellings in the original Chinese. Folly Mox (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. By precedent of keeping articles about first names, even when there are multiple versions of that first name. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't an article about a first name. It just incorrectly asserts itself to be. Folly Mox (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upon checking the links, I tend to agree with you. This seems to be about their (incomplete) names in China, and not the names they chose to adopt in English. In fact, there is no indication that they use that name in English and would be WP:OR to assume to. I am changing to Delete. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most policies invoked in this proposal don't seem to apply. If reliable sources transliterate a person's name as "Baoshan", then including them in a list of people whose names are transliterated as "Baoshan" is WP:NOTSYNTH. WP:LISTN doesn't give many hard rules, but it does name WP:LISTPURP-NAV as exempt from the normal notability guidelines. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa: By bringing up WP:LISTPURP-NAV, are you alluding to the discussion above about whether the page is useful for disambiguation? Or do you think it serves some other navigational purpose? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3, for reasons mentioned by the nom and those in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mengjie. Some transliterations cannot be deemed accurate due to the conventions of the language as a whole, and the names can be different as a whole, just transliterated by chance Karnataka (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, looks like a WP:LISTN fail. There is no convincing argument that it is useful for navigation. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Köstler

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

Another likely non-notable BLP by since-blocked sock Gamsbart. None of the references are WP:RS. Can't find any real SIGCOV on this person. They have written songs that have been published and used in some media, but they don't seem to have earned any substantive notability from it. Can't see this BLP lasting longer-term on WP. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice Thomas

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

Another BLP by User:Gamsbart (since blocked as a sock) that has no ref that is a WP:RS (all the refs are non-RS and just name-lists). Zero SIGCOV of this person that I could find. Can't see this BLP lasting on Wikipedia. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Germany, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my searches all come up with namesakes. Tirishan (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. With many thanks to Timothy Titus for expanding the article thus making it worthy of keeping (I appreciate article content isn't in the remit of AFD but nonetheless i saw no use in keeping a one-lined article that could be better served as a redirect however Timothy's expansion has now resolved those concerns and as such I'm happy to finally close this AFD as Keep), Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evesham Vale Light Railway

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

Nominating this for deletion. The only real proper prose writing is one sentence, the rest is an okay-sourced table. However, in a WP:BEFORE search for any significant coverage, I found...... nothing bar a local news site (which barely gives much information to support anything new in the article). Nominating for deletion on these grounds. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now there are enough references to show notability.-- Verbarson ^talk_edits 13:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to establish notability per WP:GNG Garuda3 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, for citation and notability. Requires expansion, but that's no reason for deletion. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 00:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Evesham#Economy where the park/mall, of which this miniature railway is an attraction, is mentioned under its current name. For now too little substance to keep and even the sole sentence is outdated. I have added the attraction to this mention. Enwiki suffers from too much fragmentation. gidonb (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough proper sourcing that establishes notability. TH1980 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Zavadovych

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

Played a small number of games in the 3rd tier of Ukraine but nothing else and, since WP:NFOOTBALL is no longer linked to WP:FPL, those games alone don't demonstrate notability. Based on my Ukrainian searches giving nothing better than PFL, a trivial mention in a birthday announcement from a non-independent source, Rayon, which mentions him only twice, and Volyn Sport, a local source that only mentions him once, I can't see a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC #5, a lower bar than WP:GNG, which he also does not seem to meet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

https://novograd.city/articles/270027/pfk-zvyagel-proviv-masove-posilennya-u-futbolnomu-klubi-semero-novachkiv

https://suspilne.media/160966-u-fk-volin-sist-dozaavlenih-gravciv-hto-voni/

http://tilkyrazom.com.ua/lutski-shkolyari-zmagalysya-za-kubok-fondu/

https://www.volynnews.com/news/sport/yak-u-lutsku-vyznachaly-krashchykh-futbolistiv-volyni/

https://volga.lutsk.ua/view/49675/

https://www.lutskrada.gov.ua/publications/volyn-2003-peremozhec-vesnyanogo-kubka-2014

https://sportarena.com/uk/footboll/ukraina-vtoraya-liga-futboll/druga-liga-podillya-stalo-peremozhtsem-grupi-a-ta/

https://sportarena.com/uk/footboll/ukraina-vtoraya-liga-futboll/druga-liga-peremogi-metalu-metalurga-i-podillya-niva/

https://www.04141.com.ua/news/3569314/pfk-zvagel-1-0-dinamo-kiiv-u19-oglad-matcu-video

https://www.04141.com.ua/news/3593131/51-pfk-zvagel-peremagae-v-kalusi-ta-vihodit-na-2-misce-drugoi-ligi-videooglad

https://www.fcvolyn.net/newsView/2224/ Ceriy (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to save people time with translating and assessing, I've summarised the above sources. I would politely ask people not to post sources that only mention Zavadovych once or twice as these are never, ever considered to be WP:SIGCOV and it's tedious to translate an article just to find that it's just a passing mention in a local schoolchildren's match report. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://novograd.city/articles/270027/pfk-zvyagel-proviv-masove-posilennya-u-futbolnomu-klubi-semero-novachkiv			Has only two sentences, which translate to "The 20-year-old pupil of "Volyn" from Lutsk, in which he played in the youth Premier League and has experience of performances in the Second League for the "Volyn-2" team. Can play both in defense and midfield."	✘ No
https://suspilne.media/160966-u-fk-volin-sist-dozaavlenih-gravciv-hto-voni/			Mentioned twice (thrice if you include the image caption)	✘ No
http://tilkyrazom.com.ua/lutski-shkolyari-zmagalysya-za-kubok-fondu/			Mentioned once, also fails WP:YOUNGATH as this is just trivial coverage of a school child	✘ No
https://www.volynnews.com/news/sport/yak-u-lutsku-vyznachaly-krashchykh-futbolistiv-volyni/			Mentioned only once despite the source being hyper-local	✘ No
https://volga.lutsk.ua/view/49675/			Mentioned only twice, match report	✘ No
https://www.lutskrada.gov.ua/publications/volyn-2003-peremozhec-vesnyanogo-kubka-2014			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://sportarena.com/uk/footboll/ukraina-vtoraya-liga-futboll/druga-liga-podillya-stalo-peremozhtsem-grupi-a-ta/			Mentioned once in the prose and once in the squad list	✘ No
https://sportarena.com/uk/footboll/ukraina-vtoraya-liga-futboll/druga-liga-peremogi-metalu-metalurga-i-podillya-niva/			Mentioned once in the prose and once in the squad list	✘ No
https://www.04141.com.ua/news/3569314/pfk-zvagel-1-0-dinamo-kiiv-u19-oglad-matcu-video			Mentioned once in U19 match report and once more in the squad list. How is this WP:SIGCOV?	✘ No
https://www.04141.com.ua/news/3593131/51-pfk-zvagel-peremagae-v-kalusi-ta-vihodit-na-2-misce-drugoi-ligi-videooglad			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.fcvolyn.net/newsView/2224/	His employer	Club sites are not RS	Mentioned once	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @GiantSnowman: pinging you in case any of the above does make you change your mind Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, unsurprisingly... Giant Snowman 17:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Thank you very much for your efforts, @Spiderone:, they are much appreciated! If every AfD was like this life would be a dream. That said, I've reviewed the sources posted and conducted a cursory Google search and I don't see any significant coverage. Akakievich (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do try my best to assess everything properly both at and before AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Betinho (footballer, born 1994)

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

Played in one cup game as a professional but, since then, has played mostly as an amateur and only briefly as a semi-pro. Please do not confuse him with this Betinho who was once accidentally linked with Man United, that one is Betinho (footballer, born 1993). Searching his full name yielded database coverage and one passing mention in Ojogo, all of which counts for nothing in terms of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. After searching for an eternity in Portuguese sources, the best that I can find are Record 1 and Record 2, both trivial mentions of Betinho that fail to establish any notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essência

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

Another non-notable entry by an editor known for their controversial take on WP:N. Here, WP:NOTGUIDE again. A "star" in a travel guide plus promotional entries in local press are insufficient for the relatively high bar of WP:NCOMPANY. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Hungary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source examination below:

1. The Budapest Business Journal article contains no in-depth coverage at all, focusing instead on minor trivialities:

Gwendal Poullennec, the Michelin Guide's international director, said both restaurants are "marvelous examples of Budapest's dynamic restaurant sphere" that "offer outstanding courses while paying tribute to Hungarian culinary traditions".
The guide calls Essencia, run by Portuguese chef Tiago Sabarigo and his Hungarian wife Éva, "a bright, warmly run and deliciously different restaurant".
It praises Salt, the brainchild of chef Szilárd Tóth, for its "intricate, exquisitely constructed dishes".
The Hungarian capital is now home to seven Michelin-starred restaurants. The others are Babel, Borkonyha Winekitchen, Costes, Costes Downtown and Stand.
The latest edition of the Michelin Guide has added six "Michelin Plate" restaurants - a designation for establishments that have neither a star nor a Bib Gourmand - in Budapest, bringing the total to 18. They include Hoppá! Bistro, Felix, Stand25 Bisztro, Spago by Wolfgang Puck, Rumour and Pasztell.

2. The Chef & Pincer article is entirely an interview, making it non-independent & very primary.

3. The Hungary Today article is a list of many restaurants and lacks in-depth coverage. It's also very short:

Also in Budapest is Essência, run by a Portuguese chef living in Hungary, Tiago Sabarigo and his wife, Éva Sabarigo. The menus available here, titled At Home Here, and at Home There, refer to the mixed-ethnicity couple, with ingredients including octopus, mackerel, cod for the Portuguese menu, and traditional potato dumplings (dödölle), a traditional brown meat sauce (vadas), and Hungarian honey cake for the Hungarian one. The five-course menu is also priced at 34,900 forints (EUR 85), wine pairing is also available, bringing the price to 52,900 forints (EUR 130), and guests should expect to pay a 15 percent service charge as well.

4. The Travel Guys article is negative in coverage and also focuses on minor trivialities, lacking any information on the actual restaurant, its history, its cultural impact, or any other meaningful aspect; the review instead analyzes someone's dislike of the food served:

As part of a family lunch in Budapest, my wife and I chose a starred restaurant in the city, Essencia, located near the basilica and its very nice Christmas market.
A look back at this disappointing experience. As a reminder, here is the itinerary followed:
The recently starred restaurant is based on a Hungarian-Portuguese fusion. Interesting on paper.
The decoration of the restaurant is very pleasant. Totally up to date, it is composed of light wood furniture, and Portuguese reminders distributed in the restaurant like a beautiful wall of azulejos.
Having visited the restaurant at lunchtime, the property offers a lunch menu, with a choice of 2 or 3 courses.
We will opt for the 3 courses formula for a little more than 17€ (yes, in a starred restaurant…) but with many supplements for some dishes.
As a starter, I choose the Mangalicsa ham, a very high quality pork, served with a toast of sourdough bread and black olives. Good, but very far from the level expected from a Michelin-starred property.
For the main course, I choose the sea food rice, which is quite good but rather nauseating. Flavors that don’t play well together.
For dessert, I chose a lemon tart, which was certainly good, but not particularly dazzling.
The service is very good and attentive.
The restaurant was almost deserted when we visited, but we had a good time with our family.
A beautiful place, but a very disappointing culinary experience. Not at all worthy of a Michelin star.

5. This YouTube source from Michelin Guide's channel isn't reliable and is an interview.

I will note that earning a Michelin Star doesn't automatically make a restaurant notable. I will also note that even if a source contains large amounts of text pertaining to the subject, it can only prove notability if it's reliable, independent, and contains significant amounts of in-depth coverage. Notability needs to be demonstrated through the existence of reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that significantly cover the subject per WP:CORPDEPTH; if the information in a source is very trivial, it can't prove the subject is notable (see also WP:SIRS). —Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: additional sources from Daily News Hungary and Hungarian Insider, which are both national publications. Some others (e.g. this BBJ article don't have much coverage, but might still be WP:SIGCOV (which only needs to be "more than a trivial mention"). I think we've got enough for WP:NCORP here: there's room to quibble some of the sources for one reason or another, but in my view, however you slice it, we've got multiple, independent, reliable (enough) sources giving WP:SIGCOV of the subject. I'd suggest that there probably should be some Michelin-star based notability guideline: perhaps not simply having one, but we have similar guidelines for people who receive honours recognising them as at the top of their field. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily News Hungary looks awfully unreliable. It's not just about the comments under the article – editorial oversight was poor – but their entire staff numbers eight journalists[1] who, as can be seen on clicking their names, typically churn out 6–8 articles a day on any topic imaginable. It's as far from quality journalism as it gets.

Hungarian Insider is dodgy. It's unrelated to Business Insider, even as it steals its logo style and layout. It offers no list of editorial staff, no address, articles don't mention author names etc.[2] The domain is registered in New Zealand and owner's identity is hidden.[3] The website looks dead anyway – the most recent news piece on its homepage dates to November 2022 and most are from 2019, the year the website was started. I have no time to verify whether it carried original reporting or – much more likely – simply reposted news from elsewhere after translating them into English. In any case, having anything mentioned on www.hungarianinsider.com does not confer an encyclopaedic notability in the slightest. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily News Hungary source lacks significant coverage. This is its entire coverage of Essencia:

Of the two restaurants in Budapest, Essência Restaurant (EUR 25 for a meal per person) got into the top 10, so it was given two paragraphs by Chef’s Pencil. They highlighted that it is run by a Portuguese-Hungarian duo, Tiago and Éva Sabarigo, and guests can enjoy the essence of both cuisines, as Portuguese and Hungarian flavours blend effortlessly in their dishes.

The Hungarian Insider article also lacks SIGCOV, containing only trivial coverage:

Essência is run by the Portuguese-Hungarian duo Tiago and Éva Sabarigo, according to Chef’s Pencil. Guests can enjoy the best of Hungarian and Portuguese cuisine by choosing the “fusion” tasting menu, which effortlessly combines the two cultures. The cheapest three-course lunch menu starts from EUR 25 per person. You can also choose from a wide selection of Portuguese and Hungarian wines.

The problem with these sources is that they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't just look for sources and automatically consider them to be SIGCOV. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial ... coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." No information provided by any of these sources is actually in-depth and detailed. If they were, they'd perhaps analyze the restaurant's operational history, its ownership history, its cultural impact, etc; they focus instead on minor trivialities like food prices and taste, while other sources are routine in coverage. In addition, to determine notability according to SIRS, "individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other." Any one of these sources analyzed on its own fails SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nythar's source assessment. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nythar's source assessment. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as a G5 by Bbb23‎. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naeem Ad

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

Can't find any decent sources in Urdu or English. Subject is a BLP so needs high quality sourcing to justify an article. The article is referenced entirely to self-published sources with the exception of Tribune and Galaxy Lollywood both of which don't mention Naeem Ad at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Photography, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. Insight 3 (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Bruxton (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Green

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

No evidence she meets WP:PROF, the "Institute of Psychophysical Research" appears to be an independent organization and she does not seem widely cited in Scholar for her work. - car chasm (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Paranormal, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BASIC - sustained coverage of her work (mostly available on ProQuest) as a writer has been added to the article. There is often not much depth, but there are more than trivial mentions over time that seem to support her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Beccaynr and WP:HEY. The sourcing added after the posting of this afd makes a solid case for borderline notability per WP:BASIC. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable person in the history of parapsychology. As is usual with Wikipedia's bias in this topic area, additional sources that would help further substantiate her contributions to the field are not allowed. 5Q5|^✉ 12:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First because people have gone to the trouble of contributing, and their contributions should not be deleted unless there is a good reason for it. Secondly, I would mention that the BBC series Everyman considered her work notable enough to be covered in a TV documentary in 1985 (not actually referred to in the existing Wikipedia article, but available here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCi_fZUAp7M ). Unless someone has a burning desire to 'cancel' research into this particular area of dream research (which, incidentally, has nothing intrinsically 'para' about it), please let this article stay. Chrisgp (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Psychology. TJMSmith (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Scholar shows a respectable rate of citation for her work on lucid dreaming and out of body experiences. Some of the citing works will of course be agreeing, some just reporting and others disagreeing. But disagreement is not grounds for deletion! It is grounds for keeping because the topic is one of lively debate. Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) Merko (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wriggler (video game)

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

A minor video game that clearly fails WP:GNG. Google shows nothing and the entire article is almost unsourced. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 17:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4 magazine reviews are popping up on Mobygames already. Older games tend to have reviews in WP:OFFLINE sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zxcvbnm. I found an additional short review via Newspapers.com [4]Timur9008 (talk) 21:44, June 1, 2023 (UTC)
Withdraw Not sure why sources doesnt appear mine. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 21:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

İbrahim Türkkan

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

Article about former semi-pro footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD was removed without adding any coverage that plausibly contributes to WP:SIGCOV (as required by WP:SPORTCRIT). The best coverage available is routine/trivial stuff like match reports and database entries. Jogurney (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Germany, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any decent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ireneusz Marcinkowski

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

Article about former footballer who played one season of football in the Polish top division, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Marcinkowski was not a regular player for Bytom in that season, and all of the online coverage is routine (database entries and match reports like [5]). The best coverage I found was a brief article on a police officer in Minnesota with the same name. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Whether it's kept or organized into separate topics, a consensus isn't going to emerge to delete this. Sourcing has been identified wit which to solve the issues. Star Mississippi 01:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witches (Discworld)

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

Fictional grouping of characters; some of which may have stand-alone notability and have their own articles (Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg, Tiffany Aching), others could be merged to List of Discworld characters if they don't have an entry there already. The article has no analysis/reception or anything indicating this group has stand-alone notability and needs to have a separate article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article needs thorough cleanup, not deletion. Both the characters and the topic of witches and witchcraft are crucial to the Discworld series, and a number of withches like Magrat can be briefly described here (the current article has way too much in-universe info though), next to the three main ones which have their own articles. But the general concepts of witches and witchcraft in the Discworld series is what should be the core of this article, based on secondary sources like this one (e.g. the 14-page chapter "Be a Witch, be a Woman"). Witchcraft in Discworld novels is the central theme of multiple essats in "Philosophy and Terry Pratchett". This deals mostly with Tiffany Aching but has also enough to say about the other witches and witchcraft in Pratchett's works in general. This 14-page article is often referenced in other works about the topic as well. Fram (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like solid sources, but again, the current article needs TNT-ing - although I concur this can be achieved without hard deletion, just shortening the fancruft by ~90% or so. Then we can add the sources you found, or if nobody does it, at least replace {{notability}} with {{sources exist}}. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Fram, who looked up all the nice sources so I didn't have to. Ping me if more are needed. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Any chance you could add those sources to the article and/or remove some fancruft? I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if the article improves. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why, do you not have time? Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Joe (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. Potentially notable topic, but article is unusable in its entirety and needs to be rewritten (possibly under Witchcraft in the Discworld series). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:01, 7 June 2023
Please elaborate how WP:TNT applies to notable topics. (Hint: it does not) Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It states that "With articles, this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article." That is precisely how it applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Useless, eh? You assert that NO current or past content of this article (on a topic you admit is worth having an article) is of any value whatsoever? That's manifestly unsupportable, as the content includes references to the primary sources themselves which would appear in any GA-level article on the topic. Just because it's not cited or organized the way you or I want does not mean such a pejorative applies. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Fram has suggested the article has WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues. Bruxton (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic. The plot summary is simply too long and the analysis almost absent. But both can be remedied through normal editing, now that secondary sources have been identified. Looking at the TNT tipping point argument that was just cited: Is there anything in the current article which would be kept in a "good" version of this article? Sure, there would: The intro (which contains the one bit of analysis present), the works list, the "In other media" section, and of course selective parts of the plot summary. That's how WP:TNT tells us that this is not a case for deletion. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This title could potentially refer to three different but related topics: (1) the "sub-series" of Discworld stories containing among others Wyrd Sisters and Lords and Ladies, (2) the Discworld group of characters including Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg, or (3) the general concept of witchcraft in Discworld. It's plausible that all three of those could work as stand-alone articles, but they would need to be three different articles. The article is currently, at least ostensibly, about the group of characters, i.e. (2). TompaDompa (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that this COULD work out as three articles, but I do disagree that it necessarily be organized that way. Done well, one article could cover all three subtopics as you've identified them. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you do that, one of them still has to be the topic of the article in which context the other two are presented. Methinks the overall concept of witchcraft in Discworld (3) would be the best choice for that, and the group of characters (2) the worst. TompaDompa (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There appears to be consensus that the page does not need to be removed in its entirety, though editors may wish to apply explosives at their leisure. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nac Mac Feegle

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a very long plot summary with not a shred of indication of notability (it was already deleted in 2014 for the same reason but apparently recreated - no, sorry, I don't feel this has been improved sufficiently). My BEFORE finds mostly the same in scholarly works (Pratchett's overall visibility in academia is suprisingly high). This has two sentences of decent analysis, but that's a far cry from WP:SIGCOV. And let's face it, even if we find a bit more, 99% of this article is fancruft in need of WP:TNTing. I suggest redirecting this to The Wee Free Men in the spirit of WP:SOFTDELETE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested seems ok, this isn't notable alone. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't believe you do that book justice by claiming that there are only "two sentences of decent analysis" of the Nac Mac Feegle, page 19-23 have whole long paragraphs about them, basically 5 pages about them, not just two sentences. Now, something like this may come closer to the 2-sentence-mark than the 5-page-mark, but it still is an additional secondary reliable source about them. I'm unable to see just how much this book has to say about them, but this one has enough to warrant a keep (no page numbers, but e.g. the section starting "The Wee Free Men are "the way around the rules" embodied" and the next pages place the Nac Mac Feegle in an anarchist perspective). They have their own section in this French book. Most of the pages on them in this book are not accessible to me (I can see p. 150, but not 151-152), but it discusses the origin of them as a mixture of pixies, Picts, and ants. If they only appeared in Wee Free Men, then a redirect might have been for the best; but as they are central characters in 5 or 6 books, and have received more than enough commentary as highlighted above, having a separate article is fully warranted, even if the current one needs loads of work. Fram (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For the record, the two sentences I referred to where in the book review, not the book. Sadly I don't have access to this book through Google Books, but I'll see if I can find other ways. If you are correct, the topic may be notable (good), but I still think the current article needs a WP:TNT treatment - although this can be done without admin hard deletion, just by gratitious reducing this fancruft to a stub, and/or expanding it with the sources you found. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A copy can be found at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/secretsofweefree0000pyyk --Auric talk 21:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Keep per Fram, who has my thanks for doing that so I didn't need to, but can search out further sources if needed. I also agree that redirection to a single book is inappropriate as they are major characters in multiple notable Discworld books.

2) Thanks for the courtesy ping.

3) "Fancruft" is not now, and never has been, a reason for WP:TNT per the essay itself. The vast majority of times that essay is cited, it is cited in a manner inconsistent with its own wording, and this would be one of those times. No objection to appropriate cleanup, but as I just addressed at Unseen University, people seem unwilling to do the nuanced work to actually improve and integrate, rather than eliminate, coverage. Deleting stuff is easy; making it into encyclopedic coverage is much harder. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maguffin

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

Lack of notbility Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPANY. No media coverage at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the link which used to point to their homepage and now points to unsafe content. No sources and no claim of notability; the only Google hits are Wiki mirrors. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH with a lack of reliable sources coverage. In fact I couldn't find anything about it at all, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonkin enterprise multiple

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

No WP:SIGCOV. Through WP:BEFORE I found some links ([6], [7]), but they both suspiciously are from the year of this Wiki article creation (2018) and have one author.

Also, the page is orphaned for a long time. MartinPict (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Artem.G (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Đurović

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

This individual lacks notability and more importantly some information seems fabricated. For example, the article claims this individual to be "Vice President of the Jewish Community of Montenegro" but it is not true (the current website contradicts its previous version); ditto for "Chairwoman of OJC SEE". Also, "As a journalist, she works as film and TV critic", however she doesn't work for any notable media outlets, apart from her own blog, which is practically unknown but nevertheless advertised here. Magg17 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Montenegro, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Sources are very outdated and this person is really non relevant. Боки ✉ 17:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Off-wiki canvassing here, but I also find it peculiar that a new user account is created at 6:46, and an error-free, perfectly-f0ormed AfD is posted at 6:55. Zaathras (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's this, from the World Jewish Congress, [8], I assume is a RS and not related to the subject of this AfD. Plenty of sources in Serbian?, which I can't assess to notability or not using Gtranslate. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The real purpose of this (old) article seems to promote her blog. 151.57.238.164 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ekar (carsharing app)

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

Possible block violation and recreation. the page was drafted recently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ekar BoraVoro (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Middle East, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very Promo. An article about raising funds and an interview with the founder don't contribute much towards notability. I can't find any other sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say the amount of coverage from The National, Gulf Business, and Gulf News is sufficient, despite the promotional nature of the article. SWinxy (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The resources come from reliable websites which claim the notability of the company and passes WP:GNG. See Euronews-Meet the Entrepreneurs: Vilhelm Hedberg, The National (Abu Dhabi)-Why buy a car when you can save money on renting or sharing instead?, Forbes-MENA's Top 50 Most Funded-Startups, UAE’s ekar launches car subscription service in Saudi Arabia, The National (Abu Dhabi)-Generation start-up: UAE's ekar drives car-share sector at top speed, There's a new pay-per-hour car rental option in Dubai, Khaleej Times-Ekar adds 500,000 cars to its fleet. Rath Butcher (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't taken a super close look at the sources so no comment on whether those are independent, but I've done some c/e and removed some of the promo tone. Hope that helps. Blue Edits (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are promotional and superficial. NortonAngo (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails wP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think that the The National and Gulf News coverage could begin to establish a case for notability, but they do have a veneer of promotionality to them. The Gulf Business coverage is one step worse in this capacity, as it uses a collective byline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the most part I agree with Rosguill's analysis, but the Gulf Business articles read clearly of being press releases to me, Gulf News slightly less so, and both of them would fall under the standard notices/routine coverage parts of CORPDEPTH, so I am comfortable eliminating them entirely. Rest of the ghits seem more of the same. Two marginal articles from the same newsorg then, does not NCORP make. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Stanley

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOV, also edited substantially by editors with COI and has had virtually no expansion from anyone else Toffeenix (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page history shows that the article was hijacked from a redirect in 2022 and all of the substantial edits since are from that user one user who is accused of being the same user on their talk page. Looking past the WP:REFBOMB, as far as I can tell the only significant coverage is in the Monacomatin ref-- everything else is primary/an interview or a trivial mention in cast lists of reality show participants. There is a blog review of a song but that hardly establishes notability, so no WP:GNG. With no significant chart performance I don't think he satisfies WP:NMUSIC either. Blue Edits (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The chart seems to indicate he had a song chart in Billboard in Luxembourg; the link given doesn't confirm that. Appears to be a HOAX for that particular claim (text says he charted in spotify in Luxembourg, which isn't notable in wiki). Rest appears PROMO. Delete for not meeting NMUSIC or GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero coverage in Gnews; People article about a person hitting an alligator, that shares the same name as this fellow [9], then it's into the void for sourcing for the subject discussed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PDCP College Basaith Benipatti

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No useful sources were surfaced by the minimum searches mentioned in WP:CONRED. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Bihar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly suggested by MPGuy2824 above. --Bduke (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no references in 9 years and no indication of notability whatsoever. greyzxq ^talk 22:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Surprise for the Paynes (The Paynes)

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

Article is plot and cast list and has no additional value then what is presented at The Paynes#Episodes. Since the article's creator had created several of these, I believe it's better to bring it here than convert all to drafts and risk an edit war. If deleted, then make this a redirect to the episode table. Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three, no redirect Cast lists/type what I see recaps about a generic sitcom whose episodes were made in bulk, unlikely search as an ATD title. Nate • (chatter) 18:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user is still creating new articles about this. Heart ^(talk) 09:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable. No suitably-cited information to merge. I'm not sure why the page is titled "A Surprise for the Paynes (The Paynes)" rather than "A Surprise for the Paynes"; the latter seems a better redirect to The Paynes#Episodes. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revelations of Payne (The Paynes)

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

Article is plot and cast list and has no additional value then what is presented at The Paynes#Episodes. Since the article's creator had created several of these, I believe it's better to bring it here than convert all to drafts and risk an edit war. If deleted, then make this a redirect to the episode table. Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable. No suitably-cited information to merge. I'm not sure why the page is titled "Revelations of Payne (The Paynes)" rather than "Revelations of Payne"; the latter seems a better redirect to The Paynes#Episodes. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Fugitive in Payne (The Paynes)

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

Article is plot and cast list and has no additional value then what is presented at The Paynes#Episodes. Since the article's creator had created several of these, I believe it's better to bring it here than convert all to drafts and risk an edit war. If deleted, then make this a redirect to the episode table. Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to The Paynes. No sense to have this as separate page. Gothamk (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to The Paynes. as not independently notable. No suitably-cited information to merge. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is not a plausible search term so should not be redirected. WJ94 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Binn (serialization format)

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

Non-notable serialization format. Article created by the developer himself. Frap (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, unsourced, not notable, self-promo. Artem.G (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and therefore doesn’t meet GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Khani

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

Fails WP:GNG, I couldn't find any reliable sources. The BBC link, is just a list of music, where he is breifly mentioned. The article was proposed for deletion on June 14, 2015 but the template was removed the following day. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not notable, was doubtful even in 2015. No sourcing found in my search, article appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's this, from Creative Loafing Charlotte [10], vaguely mentions the subject here remixing a song. Can't beat the website name either, I'd pick that for a wiki user name in a hearbeat. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't enough to establish notability. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my own searches are only coming up with the usual junk sources like SoundCloud. Non-notable remixer of songs Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Natural (group). ✗plicit 12:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael 'J' Horn

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

This article, recently created from a redirect, fails to cite reliable sources, and publishes what may be contentious material. Furthermore the subject may fail WP:GNG as an individual. I recommend as an alternative to deletion restoring the redirect to Natural (group) (which itself is tagged for verifiability). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Florida. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natural (group), which was working just fine. WP:BANDMEMBER. 162 etc. (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is also fine in this case. Non-notable except in context of the band. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natural (group) as no evidence of notability outside the band, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Paynes. or an appropriate subsection thereof. Star Mississippi 01:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Waiting Game (The Paynes)

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

Article is plot and cast list and has no additional value then what is presented at The Paynes#Episodes. Since the article's creator had created several of these, I believe it's better to bring it here than convert all to drafts and risk an edit war. If deleted, then make this a redirect to the episode table. Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to The Paynes. Gothamk (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Paynes#Episodes per nom. Article is indeed in a very poor shape, but would surely be useful as a redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abolhasan Farhoudi

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

Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. Also fails WP:PROF. I would reconsider if anyone can find sources in Persian. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I can find in Farsi is 1 and 2 which isn’t enough to keep the article. Mccapra (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources insufficient at this time. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Valley Public School

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No GNG-level sources were surfaced by the minimum searches mentioned in WP:CONRED. A previous PROD was self-reverted. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced stub article with no evidence of passing WP:GNG. I didn't find anything either during a quick before search. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources in 10 years, and no indication of notability. Also fails WP:NSCHOOL greyzxq ^talk 22:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Ballet Shoes (novel). ✗plicit 06:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Fossil

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

~~Character content fork from Ballet Shoes (novel). No reason for this to be a standalone article Gugrak (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nominator. It does look like a content fork. CastJared (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nom and CastJared. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Next to no referenced content to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ballet Shoes (novel) as the content is unsourced. ✗plicit 06:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petrova Fossil

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

Unsourced content fork from Ballet Shoes (novel). No reason for this to be a standalone article Gugrak (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nominator. It does not cite any sources. CastJared (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nom and CastJared. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No referenced content to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ballet Shoes (novel) as the content is unsourced. ✗plicit 06:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posy Fossil

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

~~Unsourced content fork from Ballet Shoes (novel). No reason for this to be a standalone article Gugrak (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nominator. It does not cite any sources. CastJared (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nom and CastJared. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No referenced content to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 01:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Anastasia

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

Requesting to move for draft as mainspace not submitted for review. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Mexico. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can only find routine coverage. Article is promotional anyways. At the very least, a major cleanup would be necessary. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AfC is not mandatory, so this isn't a valid deletion rationale. pburka (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, give the new page patrol time to do their job. YesI'mOnFire, in explanation, if you hadn't nominated this for AfD only a few hours after it was submitted to main-space, the new page patrol would have found it and sent it back to draft space. Articles may be submitted directly to main-space by their original authors, that's allowed, but we have a well-organised and careful mechanism to screen articles, see Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol. But having said all that, this is at best a drastically-inadequately sourced article. Elemimele (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as Elemimele suggested. Bruxton (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Gowra

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

Aryan Gowra does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Clearly he's at the beginning of a career that might one day establish his notability, but he's not there yet. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, not a notable actor as he has only been in two films greyzxq ^talk 15:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Canning Studios

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

The article is largely promotional material written by an employee of the company. The majority of the information comes from the company itself. A few other sources are cited, but only the WSJ and Times Leader article mention the company at all. Both do so only in passing. The article does not appear to meet the standards for notability. Owunsch (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, Scotland, and Connecticut. Skynxnex (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:COI, and nom. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project Colored Mountains (video game)

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

Not finding anything other than basic listings that do not contribute to notability. None of the four sources in the article contribute to notability. Pretty clear case of when to draftify, but that's been done and the creator immediately moved it back to mainspace, so another unilateral draftify would be a poor idea. (The creator has a declared COI.) I think the only option left is an AFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator ignored the rejections of their draft - twice - and recreated this clearly promotional article. Wikipedia is not for spamming with whatever new game you made, WP:GNG is clearly failed here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it promotional? Cjamsla511 (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: It doesn't pass GNG. The creator evaded the rejections of the draft twice. CastJared (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believed that Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia while creating this, and I assumed that anyone could make an article on anything. Apparently that isn’t the case. I’m not sure why you can’t make an article if you are even slightly related to the subject that it’s on. This article was written knowing that it would be updated when the game was released, and due to the nature of the project (indie 3d platformer) it was near-impossible to get any major sources to cover the game. Unfortunately, I can’t not make a Wikipedia page because then Google results and YouTube gaming wouldn’t show my game, it would show a mountain in Colorado or just the word Roblox. I’m not using or attempting to use this article for promotion, but I need it to use other methods of promotion. If anyone would be willing to try to remove and rewrite whatever I did wrong, that would be less devastating to this project than deleting it and much appreciated.

TL;DR not sure what I did wrong other than write an article about a topic I liked but if someone or multiple people could help fix it instead of deleting it, that would be much appreciated

Cjamsla511 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. That doesn't mean anything and everything can be included. You may want to read WP:NOT for more insight.

You can make an article if you're related, and people have done it, but it's much harder to be neutral and objective, especially when you get benefits if the article exists/is positive (which is your case). Also, using the Wikipedia page to generate Google and YouTube Gaming results is promotion.

We work with the sources, that's the rule. If you can't get sources to cover your game, we don't have much to work with. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zxcvbnm. Clearly the article creator hasn't worked out that Wikipedia isn't for promotion yet. 07:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment: the creator has moved the article back to draftspace. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask why all the article was was just a template or two. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 21:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability whatsoever. I've also returned the page back to mainspace and blocked the creator for advertising. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator blanked and attempted to G7 this while it was in draftspace, but at some point between then and the move back to mainspace it was restored. I don't see any reason why G7 doesn't apply here, but I could be missing something. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a question of whether the blank was done in "good faith" or as part of an attempt to evade scrutiny. Hence I think an AfD is still justified. After all, they ultimately refused to leave it as a draft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that their block appeal claims they were being "targeted" which seems to indicate they have read literally nothing in terms of notices or warnings they were given about notability, nor any of the policies, which would explain what is going on pretty clearly. They are lashing out at editors which does not indicate good faith on their part, but rather WP:NOTHERE behavior. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who knows, it may release and become notable, but for now, the sources aren't there. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upcoming game without any coverage, like at all. SWinxy (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King Fook Holdings

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

Nothing per RS and WP:GNG NortonAngo (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Selection of two sources:
  1. "Capital magazine article". Capital [zh]. 2009. Retrieved 2023-05-27 – via Google Books. [zh]&rft.atitle=Capital magazine article&rft.date=2009&rft_id=https://books.google.com/books?id=5tZLAQAAIAAJ&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 1" class="Z3988">
    The article notes: "景福集團六十年發展里程碑 1 o 1949 創辦人楊志雲創立位於文咸東街的景福金舖。 1959 景福金舖正式轉向珠寶、黃金,以及腕錶等三大零售業務發展,並於美麗華酒店商場開設首家分店。 1965 成立景福黃金及珠靈(九龍)有限公司。 1970 成立景福黃金及珠寶有限公司中環分店。 1971 位於中環景福大廈的景福珠寶正式開幕。 1988 景福集團有限公司( 280 )在本地主板上市。 1999 首間 Masterpiece by king fook 概念店正式於太古廣場開幕。 2000 景福珠寶(九龍)與景福珠寶(香港)合併於景福"
    From Google Translate: "Milestones of King Fook Holdings's 60-year development 1 o 1949 Founder Yang Zhiyun founded King Fook Gold Shop located on Bonham Strand. 1959 King Fook Gold Shop officially turned to the three major retail businesses of jewellery, gold, and watches, and opened its first branch in the Miramar Hotel shopping mall. 1965 Established King Fook Gold & Pearl (Kowloon) Limited. 1970 Established King Fook Gold & Jewelery Co., Ltd. Central Branch. 1971 King Fook Jewelery in Central King Fook Building officially opened. 1988 King Fook Holdings Limited (280) was listed on the local main board. 1999 The first Masterpiece by king fook concept store officially opened in Pacific Place. 2000 King Fook Jewelery (Kowloon) and King Fook Jewelery (Hong Kong) merged into King Fook ..."
  2. Hou 侯, Weimin 维敏; Hou, Shusen 侯书森 (1996). 东方之珠: 香港的旅游与购物 [Pearl of the Orient: Travel and Shopping in Hong Kong] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Federation of Literary and Art Circles. p. 379. ISBN 978-7-50-592491-8. Retrieved 2023-05-27.
    The book notes: "“景福” ,开始独立经营。初期,主要从事提炼黄金,买卖金条及黄金首饰批发业务。在他的努力下,景福的金器以成色可靠而受到顾客的信任和欢迎。随着景福业务的发展,杨志云开始多元化经营,包括旅店、房地产、电影院和建筑工程投资。景福本身的发展也呈多元化。... 随着景福业务的发展,杨志云开始多元化经营,包括旅店、房地产、电影院和建筑工程投资。 ... 1970 年,景福在港注册成立公司,注册后逐渐扩大业务,开始经营进口钻石的打磨和销售。"
    From Google Translate: "King Fook began to operate independently. In the early stage, it was mainly engaged in refining gold, buying and selling gold bars and wholesale gold jewelry. Thanks to his efforts, King Fook's gold wares are trusted by customers for their quality and reliability. With the development of King Fook's business, Yang Zhiyun began to diversify his business, including investment in hotels, real estate, cinemas and construction projects. ... In 1970, King Fook registered and established a company in Hong Kong. After registration, it gradually expanded its business and began to operate the polishing and sales of imported diamonds."
2. Additional sources:
  1. "景福集團八八至八九年度金條減銷首飾零售顯增稅後溢利八千二百萬元" [From 1988–1989, King Fook Group reduced sales of gold bars and jewelry retailing, significantly increasing profit after tax to $82 million]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1989-09-12. Retrieved 2023-05-27 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  2. 未生 (2017-02-07). "賣盤零距離？" [Selling zero distance?]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.
    The article notes: "其間有人提起景福(280)為削減成本，未來擬把中環總店外的店舖關閉。一家曾在珠寶行業佔重要地位的公司竟淪落至此，未生感唏噓，但亦有原因。回憶往事，景福起步和周大福(1929)和周生生(116)接近，創辦人楊志雲當年較周大福及周生生主事人年紀大，"
    From Google Translate: "Someone mentioned that King Fook (280) plans to close the stores outside the main store in Central in the future in order to cut costs. It is not a shame that a company that once occupied an important position in the jewelry industry has fallen to this point, but there are also reasons. Recalling the past, King Fook’s start was similar to that of Chow Tai Fook (1929) and Chow Sang Sang (116). The founder Yang Zhiyun was older than the principals of Chow Tai Fook and Chow Sang Sang at the time, ..."
  3. Ip, Stephanie (2021-10-07). "Jewellery Connoisseur Feiping Chang Walks Us Through "masterpiece by king fook"". Prestige Hong Kong. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.
    The article notes: "With seven decades of expertise in high jewellery, there’s no doubting King Fook when it comes to sourcing the most desirable jewellers to introduce to Hong Kong. ... King Fook, established in 1949, has long understood the tastes of Hong Kong and our hunger for quality and fine craftsmanship. ... Since its early days, King Fook specialised in the trade of jade, silver and gold ingot pieces, an area they still claim unparalleled expertise to this day. As their business expanded, King Fook set about discovering and curating unique jewellers around Europe to bring their unique creations to Hong Kong, satisfying its customers’ increasing desire for one-of-a-kind jewellery."
  4. McHugh, Fionnuala (1999-09-19). "New gold standards". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.
    The article notes: "Fifty years ago this week, at the mid-autumn festival of 1949, King Fook Goldsmiths opened at 5 Bonham Strand, close to the Chinese Gold & Silver Exchange Society (then in a different building, but on the same Mercer Street site where it now stands). ... King Fook soon opened up a branch in Macau, which was far-sighted because in the late '40s the Hong Kong government decided to regulate the import and export of gold. ... In the same year, 1959, King Fook diversified into the jewellery business. Naturally, it concentrated on the pure "yellow" gold, which is rarely seen in the West and is so prized in the East. ... This summer, King Fook opened a shop in Pacific Place called Masterpieces by King Fook (although the "by King Fook" label is in noticeably smaller script than "Masterpieces" on all the signage). It sells watches by such upmarket designers as Franck Muller and Audemars Piguet, and precious jewellery made in King Fook's workshops, with settings of white gold or platinum."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow King Fook Holdings (traditional Chinese: 景福集團有限公司; simplified Chinese: 景福集团有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the multiple sources presented by Cunard...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An easy Keep per the sources provided above. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. While it is not entirely clear that WP:GNG has been satisfied by provided sources, the argument that the subject meets WP:NPOL has not been rebutted and is sufficient basis for keeping the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazim Osmanov

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

Other than holding a parochial office in the Muborak regional Soviet Communist Party branch, nothing more even in Russian-language sources. Falls short of WP:BIO. Brandmeister^talk 07:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Brandmeister^talk 07:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, he would pass WP:NPOL, but I could not find any sources that verify this service despite a very thorough search. In fact, the only source I found was this, which does have a brief snippet of him at page 107 entry 7169, but does not mention service in the legislature. Curbon7 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the same sourcing difficulty. Significant coverage in multiple secondary sources per WP:BASIC seems to be absent, so pulling out a meaningful biography beyond stub is doubtful here. Brandmeister^talk 14:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that he was a deputy is verified by THREE obituaries about him: the one in Lenin Bayragi cited in the article, the obituary for him in Pravda Vostoka (the largest Russian language newspaper of Uzbekistan), the obituary for him in Sovet Uzbekistoni (the largest Uzbek language newspaper of Uzbekistan at the time), and having your obituary in a national newspaper is a big deal. Despite the claims of some people about being “thorough” in research looking for information that is clearly not the case because they could have easily found the obituaries I linked if only they just bothered to look in the right place, or even just bothered to read the obituary in Lenin Bayragi that the article already uses which says that he was a deputy. Sadly this problem afflicts lots of Uzbek articles…it wasn’t long ago that our most highly decorated scientist Toshmuhammad Sarimsoqov (The head of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences and recipient of the highest Soviet civil honor Hero of Socialist Labor) was shrugged off as non-notable by another non-Uzbek. So please stop assuming that there is no press on someone just because you can’t find it because there is a chronic problem with English Wikipedia editors not being able to find Uzbek media materials--Salazarov^(chat) 11:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF, and the Lenin Bayragi source is a link to a hidden VK page. This source is sufficient in demonstrating an WP:NPOL pass, so Keep. Curbon7 (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sharp Things

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

No sources with depth-of-coverage to meet WP:MUSIC; HuffPost article is a press release, others are mentions of this band with regards to them being the opening act in a few cases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND #5, for which I added a source. "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Bar None Records meets that criteria, and this band released two albums on that label. And I'm guessing Ropeadope Records also counts as a third album. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone else want to assess this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:BAND#5 and specifically releases on Bar None, which has acts like Alex Chilton and the Feelies in its roster.

Really no other justification for keep. The lack of sources speaks loudly for a band with this long a tenure, and although I disagree with nom that the HuffPo article is a press release, it's an interview which makes it questionable as a WP:RS. It seems Serpa himself gets more press than this band; might be easier to source as an article about him with the band as a sub-heading (but I'm not proposing or volunteering). Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per RecycledPixels' decision. CastJared (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bob the Builder home video releases

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

Unsourced, WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTIINFO, it's not the job of Wikipedia to provide a comprehensive list of every single home video release that can ever be purchased. Ajf773 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ajf773 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced list in violation of NOTCATALOGUE. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. And, the original creator User:Suiteman has been banned indefinitely from the site - never a good sign! Godtres (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kolodziej

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO. Not seeing significant coverage in sources independent of the subject KH-1 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me!) 01:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think he meets the notability threshold as I fail to see significant coverage about him specifically. I went to YouTube expecting an account with a lot of followers and a high view count, but actually, he has less than 200 followers and his most popular video has 1K views. Pichpich (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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