Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 02	November 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu High School, Matanhail

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

I am almost unable to verify the existence of this private high school. The Board of Education does not appear to be a viable merger target as it doesn't seem to operate in the way they or a school district does in the US as a catch all. Star Mississippi 23:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Haryana. Star Mississippi 23:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Also, as a for-profit school fails WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think this is a for-profit school? If it is then it can't get any official accreditation. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Contributor008 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Fails WP:GNG. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC) -strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Private school doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It totally fails WP:SIGCOV. I got nothing by Google search about it. Kasar Wuya (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it badly fails my longstanding standards for high schools. In particular, there's no evidence that it's "been in existence for (at least) 10 academic years," or grants "an International Baccalaureate" or that its teachers have "have Bachelors' degrees or higher." It is not accredited by a regional or national body; it lacks "2 or more notable alumni, who already have their own articles ... and 2 or more reliable sources..." It has zero "notable academic programs, major annual events, or scholastic sports." Bearian (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 to delete; strong suggestion to merge. There appears to be a general consensus that the information should remain in Wikipedia, and probably in a form that is merged with List of massacres in Switzerland. The decisions regarding exactly what that merge will look like is outside the scope of this AfD, and would better be taken to the talk pages of the articles in question. Joyous! | Talk 02:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mass shootings in Switzerland

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

There's already an article about mass murders in Switzerland which includes mass shootings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Switzerland Abatementyogin (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Lists, and Switzerland. Skynxnex (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has far more content than List_of_massacres_in_Switzerland. You should've just started a merge request instead of a deletion discussion. Dream Focus 11:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! This important information should be kept on the encyclopedia. Maybe they could add a "shootings" section to the List_of_massacres_in_switzerland Radiatoraligator (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A merge or an edit to include the mass shootings that are listed here that resulted in 4 deaths would work too.Abatementyogin (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the massacres/mass murders in Switzerland page to include some of the notable entries that are listed here but weren't over there. There's still an incident from the 1940s and 1920s I've yet to include but will soon. I'm using the FBI definition of mass murder listed here: https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-july-2008-pdf It's the same definition the mass murders in Australia page uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia Lemme know if there's any concerns Abatementyogin (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
added said incidents to the page. shouldn't be any issues now Abatementyogin (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few events from last 110 years to make a list. --Yoonadue (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate list. Paucity of entries compared to universal firearms access is itself notable. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of massacres in Switzerland, where this subject was already covered, albeit with less sourcing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. MelatoninEmbryo (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back as a fork. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There's a category error here. The topics, and thus inclusion criteria, are different. The definition of mass shooting varies, but generally speaking, authoritative sources define it as three or four people shot (killed OR injured) not shot dead. Massacres require four or more dead. I also don't see how the encyclopedia or its users gain by eliminating well-sourced information about shootings with four casualties but not four deaths. OsFish (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2022 (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 move to 1876 in Women's tennis. (non-admin closure) JTZegers (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1876 Women's Tennis Tour

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

I can't seem to find any evidence for a concept like the 1876 women's tennis tour. I don't doubt that these two tournaments existed, but there seems to be nothing that links them; no common organisation, no general classification, nothing. And they don't seem to be grouped as such by later sources either. If true, then this article should either be deleted (as Wikipedia should not be creating such artificial groupings, e.g. the "womens amateur tour" from the first line of the lead section seems to be a new invention from this article as well), or completely reformed and moved to 1876 in women's tennis or something similar. E.g. this source used in the article supports the underlying existence of the 2 tournaments, but not a "Tennis Tour" or "Amateur Tour". Fram (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, History, and Tennis. Fram (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion: 1877 Women's Tennis Tour. Fram (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy comprise with moving the two articles to either 1876 in tennis and 1877 in tennis as per these articles already exisiting 1929 in tennis, 1930 in tennis 1931 in tennis, my preference would be 1876 Women's tennis 1877 Women's tennis as the later would be inline with keeping mens and womens tennis years tours seperate per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. However from 1913 the International Lawn Tennis Federation was responsible for supervising a global tennis tour through its member associations. --Navops47 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1870s in tennis may also be an option if there isn't enough content to split across multiple articles. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would move the content from both articles to 1876 in tennis and 1877 in tennis, respectively, for example here: year in tennis. I propose moving the content and deleting the 2 pages as not notable nor verifiable and they have very little content to qualify as a Draft, not an article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose and reconstruct as 1876 in Women's tennis. I note that even 1876 in Tennis does not have siblings before 1929-31 and then no more until about 1970. The events described in the article are potentially notable as the first international tennis event for women (if it was), but this is amateur sport, for which we do not normally allow WP articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 1876 in Women's tennis and 1877 in Women's tennis, and restructure the article accordingly. Also, weed out any un-verifiable content and original research/synthesis.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2022 (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 Sims. A partial merge may be performed at editorial discretion. There seems to be consensus that this information ideally belongs in an article such as The Sims modding. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mod The Sims

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

Mod The Sims is a fan-made website to host mods and custom content for The Sims titles. This website does not receive significant media attention, and hence fails notability requirements. Theknine2 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of the page, Delphster (talk · contribs), seems to be a single purpose account, and given that Delphster was the name of the website's creator's blog (see this diff), may have a conflict of interest. I'd like to do a proper search to see if the site meets WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG before stating a view, though. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I was able to find some coverage for the site on Google/Archive.org, although most of it is in passing. In a modding guide for the Sims 4, CBR described the site as "a massive CC site run by long-time fans that has been a major platform for Sims content since The Sims 2", and is discussed in an article by GamesRadar, and is briefly mentioned an article from Den of Geek. The site is briefly mentioned in two books about Machinima; 'Machinima for dummies' (p. 149), 'Machinima: The Art and Practice of Virtual Filmmaking' (p. 234, in an interview with a modder), as well as 'Women and Video Game Modding - Essays on Gender and the Digital Community' (p.96). Italian magazine Hacker Journal (November 2008, issue 163) mentions the site as "II principale sito dedicato al modding e hacking del capolavoro di Will Wright", calling it "the main site" for Sims 2 hacks and mods. A potential source is the research paper 'Specialist Language Acquisition and 3D Modding in a Sims Fan Site' - I'm currently unable to access it to see if it discusses Mod The Sims though. I think there may be more about the subject in scholarly sources, but it's a bit out of my depth. I think the site scrapes by GNG. Waxworker (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would probably be better off being redirected to a broad concept article about Sims modding in general, although that doesn't yet exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that a small section about the modding scene can be integrated into the main The Sims article, instead of the dedicated Mod The Sims and The Sims Resource articles, plus it allows for more discussion about Sims modding aside from these two sites. Theknine2 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main The Sims article. On review, it barely meets notability guidelines and most of the content is not supported or supportable by reliable secondary sources; what there is doesn't warrant an article on its own and can be merged into the main article. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main The Sims article per Chocmilk03. I agree that this isn't notable by itself but I like Zxcvbnm's idea of expanding it to a broad concept article about The Sims modding. Archrogue (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to The Sims with careful attention to what can be verified in reliable RS per WP:ATD. Otherwise, fails WP:WEBCRIT/ WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I noticed that a lot of the coverage that Waxworker was talking about were older, so I also did a book search. Found a few extra sources: [1], [2] (passing mention), [3]. The real correct answer here is Zxcvbnm's note that it should just be in a dedicated Sims modding article, similar to Skyrim modding. I may take a crack at it one day, honestly. Nomader (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2022 (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 Open-channel flow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lake discharge problem

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

Nonencyclopedic mathematical/physical treatise. The problem itself does not seem notable to me. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to open channel flow. The current article fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to open channel flow. This is another problem solution article from a Texas Tech engineering course in 2013 with a link to the instructors class notes. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Momentum–depth relationship in a rectangular channel. This is not the place to collect problem solutions. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2022 (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 Open-channel flow#Momentum equation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensionless momentum-depth relationship in open-channel flow

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

Original research Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. There are offline sources at the bottom of the article. The page has existed in mainspace for the last 9 years, and it does need inline citations. Without engaging with the sources, I am not seeing a strong argument here that the article is in fact original research or non-notable. We need an in-depth analysis of the sources to prove the claim of original research.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that the bunch of publications at the bottom support the text and I dont think anybody is in a posittion to analyze this text. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have engineering training to understand this, but I don't understand what makes it an encyclopedia article. "This topic contribution was made in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Virginia Tech, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering course: CEE 5984 – Open Channel Flow during the Fall 2010 semester." tells me everything I need to know that this isn't appropriate for this project, with extensive use of "we" and the class example "The example above comes from Dr. Moglen’s “Open Channel Flow” course (CEE5384) in Virginia Tech, U.S". Yes, textbooks such as those cited describe how to solve this sort of problem in engineering, but that doesn't mean this particular type of problem is a notable topic here. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Open-channel flow#Momentum equation. The current article fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Open-channel flow#Momentum equation. This is not the place to provide detailed textbook solutions. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2022 (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 Valeo Foods. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Foods

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

Article is far too bare, previous website seems dead. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COI Declaration I currently work for Shamrock Foods based out of Arizona USA and am not being paid for my Wikipedia edits. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero Serenity, thank you for declaring. You probably should declare the COI on your user, too, to be on the safe side. Valereee (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/move as draft There's news sources to expand the article, but I recommend it be written up in a draft then sent to WP:AFC. Judekkan (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Valeo Foods. Likely to a Valeo Foods#Products section. Per WP:NPRODUCT. "Shamrock" is a brand name for the baking/dried-fruit products sold by Valeo Foods. As per the article and the sources. The limited content that we find in the Shamrock Foods is either promotional (and removable) or deals mainly with the parent company. Not seeing any reason for this product range to have its own article. Guliolopez (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, Draftify? Or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - per Guliolopez. This was once a significant company but material to write a proper article on that historical entity is not easily found. For now, at least, this is just a brand of a larger entity, and coverage there, with potential to split out a separate article some day, seems sufficient. Draftification would probably not lead to anything much. SeoR (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2022 (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. ineligible for soft deletion, but literally no one is contesting this so IAR. Star Mississippi 16:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Handakos Street

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Searches in Greek and English yielded no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom; there's no more to say. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2022 (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 23:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Cash

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

Unsourced advert. It's possible that an article might be written about this company (if the claims are true); but this isn't it. Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any sources found are PR releases. Not much of anything we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Bank of Iraq. I'm coming over from the AfD help desk where an editor was trying to get help writing an article about this company's founder. A Google search doesn't turn up much besides this, but that's enough to show it exists. I'm not much help with foreign language sources. Interesting that the company web site says it's located in Jordan, despite its connection to Iraq. Maybe something about Sharia law restricting the operation of money apps in Iraq? TechnoTalk (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A puff piece created by either the subject or someone closely associated with him. There are no independent sources that actually cover this topic. This article is but one in a series of drafts and edits that aim to promote this mobile service's founder (see Draft:Ahmed Al-Hemyari, Draft:Ahmed ( Singer ), and Draft:Ahmed (Singer)). And then we have a long list of IPs that have been adding his name to the articles we have on notable Arab musicians (check Elissa (singer) for instance and the recent edits reverted by me. You can trace other edits by that and other similar IPs there). Keivan.f^Talk 20:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romaric Luépack

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

Not seeing the proof of notability for this player. English and French language sources turn up no significant results. Article deprodded as his career is ongoing. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and France. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG; I can't find any English or French language coverage that is anything beyond a match report or entry in a statistics database. Jogurney (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2022 (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. The consensus here is clearly a Keep among all editors, not just those who focus on weather articles, mostly because of the damage it caused in Portugal. If you believe that this article should be renamed as something other than "a hurricane", well, that discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Danielle (2022)

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

This has been discussed more than once over at Talk:2022 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Danielle (revisited). Hurricanes in general receive WP:ROUTINE coverage when it comes to their Meteorological history. This storm in particular caused no deaths, no significant damage is known to have occurred, and no records were broken. WP:NOPAGE applies here as the information about impacts can easily fit into the main article. Additionally, it also fails Wikipedia's WP:GNG, and those at the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Portugal, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. 100.12.169.218 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2022 Atlantic hurricane season. This has substantial content but not enough to be its own article, and this information would best be repurposed as part of the larger season's article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2022 Atlantic hurricane season clearly WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS. HurricaneEdgar 00:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2022 Atlantic hurricane season. See also Gonzalo of 2020. Similar impacts, however no article. But if the WP:GNG issues can be fixed, then Danielle may potentially have an article. Sarrail (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge unless more info can be found. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more info, and info stating that a death occurred. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But not more information establishing the notability of the hurricane. Drdpw (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle has zero damage and fatalities. (WP:NOPAGE) said Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. HurricaneEdgar 03:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2022 Atlantic hurricane season for the reasons stated above, especially WP:NOPAGE. The best place to present the storm to readers is in the 'Systems' section of the season article. Drdpw (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season. Danielle had impacts, but not enough for an article. Everything stated here has already been mentioned in the main article. Sorry for causing trouble about this. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as AFC acceptor) - Maybe I made the mistake of reading the project guideline and assuming that it meant what it says, rather than knowing what the unwritten rules are about tropical storm articles. Maybe it was a mistake to think that an ArbCom case would be enough so that the rules about tropical storm articles are actually written rather than being unwritten. However, the guideline says:
Hurricanes, typhoons etc should only receive a separate article if they are notable and long enough not to be considered a stub. If a storm isn't notable and/or there isn't enough to write about, the text can go inside the article for the season or country list.
In the absence of a special notability guideline, almost every tropical storm satisfies general notability, which requires significant coverage by reliable sources, and tropical storms always get that. The article in question is not a stub. So I accepted the draft, which apparently was a mistake because there are unwritten guidelines for notability. I inferred, since the included material in the season article is normally one or two paragraphs, which is stub-class, that that was the usual rule for text in the season article, so that longer drafts can be accepted. I thought that maybe the written guideline was the actual guideline. If so, keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE weather reports can't be considered "significant coverage" or else every thunderstorm that ever formed would get an article. Multiple weather stations track storms and report on them as they go through regions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My advice is either that the guideline be revised to reflect the unwritten rules, or that the project stop using Articles for Creation, which relies on reviewers who are not initiated into the unwritten rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Danielle made landfall in Portugal, almost destroying a town. State of Emergency in Portugal! Portugal is not a normal area to be hit by tropical storms. Hurricane Edgar stated that Danielle caused no fatalities or damage, but that is not true at all. While no fatalities occurred, one person was rushed to the hospital, while as I mentioned above, a town was almost destroyed. Also 644 accidents… IN PORTUGAL!

Hurricane Su (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle was not a tropical storm when it hit Portugal, and the total damage done was never reported. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge We should not have standalone articles for stat storms like this one. StellarHalo (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Hurricane Su. Landfall in Portugal, 644 accidents, and overall a strange hurricane; I think Danielle should have an article, and the article also has much more info than the Season Article. And Knowledgekid87, your reply to @Robert McClenon is not true. Danielle is more notable than "Any Thunderstorm that has Formed", because not every Thunderstorm has hit Portugal. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Hurricane Su. Knowledgekid87 made good points, but Danielle isn't just any thunderstorm. 644 accidents in a country that is rarely hit by hurricanes is pretty notable to me. Also, the article on Danielle is quite large. MoldovaballMapping (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the storm is just notable for the floods then why not make an article focused on that? Again Danielle was NOT a tropical storm OR a Hurricane when it hit Portugal, extratropical storms also can form Worldwide. Do you have any kind of source that backs up a record being broken for this particular storm? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Danielle isn't some random ordinary thunderstorm. It was a strong extratropical storm that made landfall in Portugal, causing significant damages, as per above. If not, why should Melissa have one? Sarrail (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Melissa caused damage, but so did Danielle. If Melissa has one, Danielle should too. MoldovaballMapping (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarrail @MoldovaballMapping This is a WP:OSE Argument. HurricaneEdgar 21:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For now, it is. However, we can exclude it at any time when discussing if the topic is notable. I do still think that Robert McClenon's and Hurricane Su's comments may be useful, in this case. Sarrail (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is example of article but you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other article. HurricaneEdgar 23:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle caused notable damage (644 accidents), landfall in Portugal (rarely affected by tropical cyclones), no deaths but one "severe" (heart attack) injury, and the town of Mantegias was almost completely destroyed. Also, you must admit that Danielle was a strange storm, forming and becoming a hurricane quite far north. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except as I pointed out above, Portugal is where extratropical storms form. Danielle was not a tropical cyclone when it hit the country. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storms that form in Portugal usually move west, while Danielle moved east into Iberia. Therefore, giving Danielle another notable quality. Hurricane Su (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any sources on how it was unusual for Danielle to strike Portugal as an extratropical storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only unusual "thing" on Danielle is how north it formed for the first hurricane of this season. [4] Sarrail (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle caused notable damage, this is enough to be an article? if there is one severe heart attack injury, is this enough to be an article? this is clearly WP:NOPAGE. HurricaneEdgar 01:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is large, impact is expanded, and all the guidelines for the article to be kept (ex. Expansion and sources) have been fulfilled. Hurricane Su (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the WP:ROUTINE coverage for the "Meteorological history", this article clocks in at 12KB which falls well below the 40KB threshold. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per @Hurricane Su and @Sarrail Hurricane Larry (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC) — Hurricane Larry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Italyoz484 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

per who? Hurricane Chandler (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

per me Italyoz484 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep an article without a valid reason? HurricaneEdgar 15:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't put any info. Why should you depend on yourself? Sarrail (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why depend on yourself. Put Per Hurricane Su or Robert McClenon, you have stated nothing so.... Hurricane Chandler (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as it has attracted a lot of new editors. It looks like the consensus is divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe it should be kept, as previously mentioned, there were effects in Iberia from its extratropical stage. I also believe it should be kept as its track is rather odd, forming into a hurricane at a rather high lattitude. - Sria-72 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only briefly scanned through it, but the article seems good enough to stay. A storm does not always need to be super impactful to get an article, especially considering the fact that almost every tropical cyclone that hits the United States is given an article these days. Honestly, the more info the article can provide, the more the storm impacts, regardless of whether or not its severe or minor, is known. This article meets the notable criteria in my opinion so I see no problem with it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept, and I agree with ChessEric's reasoning above. Hurricane Danielle is still notable for its track and its effects – despite being minimal. Also, the article looks good too (i.e. no citation issues). Vida0007 (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2022 (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. Joyous! | Talk 03:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Bir Uttam Lt. Anwar Girls School & College

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a challenged G4 speedy deletion returned here for community consideration. The new article has improved sourcing over the original deletion. Both are restored to enable comparison. I'm neutral on whether this should be kept. SpinningSpark 16:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources indicate that the subject is notable enough to keep the article. Mehedi Abedin 03:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 50 years of Shahed Bir Uttam Lt. Anwar Girls' School & College Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while it still needs more improvement, it is a good start, and easily passes my standards for schools. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is worlds better than the version that was previously deleted. I do not speak Bengali so I did have to rely on Google Translate for some of the sources, but the sources currently in the article do demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2022 (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 12:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Java

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Couldn't locate any book reviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Looking for consensus. scope_creep^Talk 13:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hits in ZimEye and 284News, they don't look like RS. Mostly tabloid stuff? Unsure how RS Zimbabwean media is. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe person is notable, ZimEye is one of the top blogs available in Zimbabwean media. Gwatakwata (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are WP:SPS. They are not a reliable source. scope_creep^Talk 10:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious fail of WP:NAUTHOR because self published. Self-published authors rarely are notable. So looked into WP:GNG. Here also a fail. In the rare case coverage wasn't a blog, there was no WP:SIGCOV. Should be redirected to Passion Java, however, per WP:ATD. gidonb (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is ZimEye and 284News newspapers? 284News seems to a commercial tv company. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing anything here that would demonstrate SIGCOV.-KH-1 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Institute of Purchasing Management

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG. Could not find significant coverage, passing mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:08, 9 November 2022 (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. I have decided to withdraw and tag the page instead, since I realized this discussion could have been to radical. (non-admin closure) JTZegers (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

System Sensor

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

This article's listed sources are mostly from the company itself, which does not establish notability per WP:ORG and WP:RS. It could be merged into Honeywell or improved with additional sources added. JTZegers (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JTZegers (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are from either the company or its parent company. Numberguy6 (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even find sources in the Wikipedia Library. This nomination is meant as a cry for help. JTZegers (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found something. I have also decided to withdraw this discussion and tag the page instead. JTZegers (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2022 (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 Libya at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Weightlifting. Star Mississippi 15:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shalabi

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

Non-notable weightlifter; subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Non-medaling and not inherently notable. Nythar (💬-🎃) 21:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Libya. Nythar (💬-🎃) 21:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Libya at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Weightlifting - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Business University

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Of the sources in the article, only [5] is not written by the company and not a primary source, but is an interview. May be a case of an article being created too soon. Ovinus (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:12, 9 November 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 14:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Gould

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

Non-notable cyclist; subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Non-medaling and not inherently notable. Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Australia. Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV, see for example this nearly full-page long article from Times, this, this, this, this, this, and several other articles available here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work by BeanieFan to show GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to BeanieFan, whose RS I have added to the page. Cabrils (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 14:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Westher

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

Non-notable cyclist; subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Sweden. Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCYCLING is ex-national champion. Paulpat99 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCYCLING, indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also won the Nordic Championship in 1989. I've added this, with source. /Julle (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Seacactus 13 (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2022 (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 Cycling at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Women's individual road race. Star Mississippi 14:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Weixiu

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

Non-notable cyclist; subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. I recommend a redirect to Cycling at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Women's individual road race. Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and China. Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree non-notable and think redirecting to the event she rode is appropriate. Paulpat99 (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cycling at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Women's individual road race - WP:ATD.

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 Cycling at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Women's individual road race. Star Mississippi 14:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie McKnight

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

Non-notable cyclist; subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. I recommend a redirect to Cycling at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Women's individual road race. Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and United States of America. Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect. I agree non-notable but would consider redirecting to the event she rode. Paulpat99 (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cycling at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Women's individual road race - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of species described in 2022

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

Also including in the nomination:

This is too broad a list topic. According to [6], around 18,000 species are described every year. We simply can't cover all of them in a list like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, Organisms, and Lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like there is a template {{Species description}} (producing a jolly navbox "[Year] in species described", presumably to fit in with "[Year] in Art" etc. ...huh) - according to which there is another half dozen articles of this sort. Any decision should apply to those as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the modern ones, but I don't know the number of species that were described around the years 1921 or 1766 (which is likely to be lower), so I've omitted them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Following Plantdrew's comment, I've added 1921. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other similar articles. A category will suffice (and not be as bloated). Why? I Ask (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including 1921 and 1766. There are 658 articles in Category:Moths described in 1921 (and that's just the species for which Wikipedia articles), so I'm pretty sure a full accounting of all species described in 1921 would make an unmangeably large list. The number of species described in 1766 might be low enough for a list, but the existing list is been sitting around for 15 years with no meaningful effort to make it complete. Plantdrew (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Esculenta (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-meant, but this lists are just too way broad in scope to be maintainable or even easily usable, per nom. Best left for the category system. (I would include 1766 as well.) Choess (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category system is how this sort of thing should be dealt with. If the "X described in (year)" category hierarchy is too bloated to navigate, that would be another discussion entirely, but making lists is not the solution. Dyanega (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability isn't an issue and there's a valid navigational purpose. It's not a WP:NOT issue, either. The main objection seems to be they're too large. when lists get too large, we can split them up. These are not yet too large, but can easily be split up as they expand. This has already been done with our category tree as pointed out above. Why would a list of 658 moths described in 1921 be an inappropriate list? If it gets unwieldy, break it up again (rather than nominate it for deletion). If/when these lists are complete, they would be too broad, but it seems fine to have a central list until that point comes. "Manageability" isn't a big concern when dealing with fixed, finite lists. There's work to set them up, sure, but then what is there to manage? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhododendrites: it is true that we could split these up into "List of mammals described in 2022" or even more specific like "List of rodents described in 2022" and those would be notable, but I think the larger question is... are we really serving readers better with that approach? We already have many categories of species described by year and it's dramatically easier to maintain than a list. With tens of thousands of species each year, it's definitely incomplete but easier to fix than these woefully incomplete list pages. In practice, if readers want/need a list of species described each year the categories are more expedient way of getting it to them. Plus, in practice most list of species articles at the genus or family level aren't any better than an alphabetical category. Steven Walling • talk 18:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: List of species described in 2012 and List of species described in 2022 appear eligible for Speedy Deletion under G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rex65mya. Jack Frost (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too broad in scope to be reasonably manageable as a list article, if it actually included the entire list of species described each year. These can and should continue to be categories. Steven Walling • talk 18:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of candidates for U.S. Representative from Ohio

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

This are lists of all candidates ever for Ohio. Elected representatives, sure, but mere candidates? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all. Fails WP:NLIST per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Further, these are entirely unreferenced articles.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all directory cruft of non-notable people Dronebogus (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This article's standards are so low that any Ohio write-in candidate ever could be mentioned here. Nate • (chatter) 23:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2022 (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. While there's consensus that this isn't suitably notable for mainspace, there's a valid argument with consensus behind it that it could be edited sufficiently to keep it alive until the team potentially attains notability. Star Mississippi 14:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar women's national under-19 football team

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

No evidence of any notability for this team which hasn't played a single game so far, and is of very minor importance once it starts playing anyway. Population of Gibraltar = 34,000, this is basically a youth team for a large town. Gibraltar has just 5 women's senior soccer teams, and no U19 competition for women. May be worth a paragraph in the senior team article perhaps, once they start playing regularly. Fram (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Europe. Fram (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean next week when they start playing regularly?We should keep it because otherwise by your logic we should delete all Gibraltar football related content except the men's senior team. VampireKilla (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, regularly as in a few years, not two games. Fram (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. On a side note, arguments over the size of the town/country, our coverage of women versus men in sports, or the potential future notability of the topic are all non-policy based comments. The fact is, we lack sources with in-depth independent significant coverage, largely because the team hasn't started playing. If and when multiple sources with independent significant coverage emerge then we can create an article. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case then I'd rather move it into Draftspace until the qualification campaign is finished and enough coverage has accumulated, then I can keep working on the page until it's ready to be published rather than entirely deleting it for a few weeks and then having to rebuild it from scratch. VampireKilla (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VampireKilla I have no objection of moving it to draft, although I do not agree that it would be a matter of a "few weeks". This topic needs to demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage to prove notability, and that requires time. Otherwise it runs afowl of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Further, we need sources about the team itself outside of the context of routine coverage of individual games to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORG (sports teams are organizations). And that will likely take a longer period of time to develop than just a few weeks. While I can not predict what RS will occur when, in general my experience is that content on organizations like sports teams takes a few years to develop sufficient enough quality RS to pass WP:ORGCRIT unless they are part of a major sports league (which this team isn't) where in-depth independent coverage occurs rapidly. I would caution you that this a topic which may take much longer than a few weeks to develop significant independent coverage in RS, and it could be a matter of months or even years before it is ready to have an article in main space. Best not to go in to article development with a set time frame in mind. It could be a brief period or a long period of time for RS to develop. The sources should lead the article development and timing of moving this article out of draft. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per VampireKilla. Giant Snowman 09:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NTEAM. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2022 (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. This discussion has not reached consensus about merging, so there should be no prejudice against a future merging proposal. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political editing on Wikipedia

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

Reliability of Wikipedia, Criticism of Wikipedia and Ideological bias on Wikipedia already exist. Why do we need another article covering the same point of view? Wareon (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. It's a clearly defined topic with significant independent coverage. While its true that we have multiple related articles, I am not seeing much redundancy in the overall content or focus of this page on those pages. As such I would view as this as an appropriate content fork per WP:SPINOFF and to a lesser extent WP:SUBPOV and WP:RELAR; all of which have applications here.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with User:4meter4 and his arguement above. What I don't see is a plausible, cited policy for its deletion (other than I DON'T LIKE IT). GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Snow~~ keep. I, too, see no reason to delete this article. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 01:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Oppose merge proposal: I disagree with the assertion that this is a poorly defined content fork. It is most certainly not. It has a specific definition of "political" for its purposes which it seems to adhere to and there is hardly any overlap between the COI editing article and itself, in terms of content. Additionally, politically motivated editing is not necessarily conflict-of-interest editing. COI editing, according to the article lede, is "when editors use Wikipedia to advance the interests of their external roles or relationships." That is to say, when they are paid for their edits, or are editing articles about themselves or people they know. Politically motivated editing, however, is not necessarily done in one's own interest, as not everyone who promotes a political ideology directly benefits financially or materially from the propagation of its associated rhetoric. It is a distinct topic that is clearly defined, it has enough material for its own article, and it is not accurate to describe this topic as a straightforward subtopic of conflict of interest editing. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page seems relevant to Wikipedia culture and history. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia Keep (see below). It's definitely not WP:POVFORK; the article seems generally neutral and I can't see any statement that differs in POV from any of the other mentioned articles. Nom may have meant WP:OVERLAP, which could be an argument here—mostly with List of Wikipedia controversies—but they differ significantly enough for me to think it's not an issue (plenty of the examples of political editing here aren't Wikipedia controversies, and plenty of Wikipedia controversies aren't about political editing). Ideological bias on Wikipedia isn't the same thing: that's about claims that Wikipedia (as a website, generally speaking) is biased, and this is about individuals and groups editing with a political goal. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to merge, per @My very best wishes:'s identification of Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, which does appear to be a significant overlap in content. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing this back to Keep again in light of further discussion and consideration (and thus creating my most confusing AfD comment of all time, sorry!). I think there is some overlap here and might be some contention with how to handle both topics, but given the author's explanation of a goal to separate political and commercial/personal conflict-of-interest editing as a WP:SPINOUT, I can see how that overlap would be handled. As Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia currently stands, I think it's confusing that some political examples (Koch brothers, WikiScanner which appears on both) are still on the other page, and that the other page doesn't make the spinout clear, but these are things that can be improved (and that work seems to be underway), not a rationale for deletion. Also, while I can see the argument for merging (clearly), I'm a bit confused by people claiming this is a WP:POVFORK. A POV fork is a fork that exists to explicitly cover a topic from a non-neutral POV, or when editors cannot agree on content of the page being spun out, which this does not seem to be. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator). COI editing on Wikipedia is a >100kb article that is mostly examples of political and commercial nature, so it seems obvious per WP:SPINOFF / WP:SPINOUT / WP:SIZERULE that it should be split into topical sub-articles. There's no doubt the subject meets WP:GNG, and care has been taken to maintain neutrality and avoid redundancy vis-à-vis related articles. François Robere (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia as a poorly defined content fork. First of all, this is a misleading title of the page. The actual subject of this page, as currently written, is Political editing by people with a conflict of interest. Simply a "Political editing" (the current title) is something different: this is editing driven by personal political bias, not by the conflict of interest. Secondly, I doubt that "political" can be separated from "non-political". As correctly defined in our page, politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. Nearly all content of page Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia is closely related to politics. Hence the merging. "Politics" does not mean "government"; it is much wider and involves decisions and activities by individual people and groups. Please check Politics#Definitions. This is "who gets what, when, how". My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article titles need to be "recognizable... natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles" (MOS:AT), and this one is. Where there's need for further explanation - eg. of scope - then it goes in the lead. It's the same with other, more established articles like Reliability of Wikipedia and Vandalism on Wikipedia, which rely on specific terminology the exact meaning of which is explained in the lead: "reliability" is the "validity, verifiability, and veracity" of an article, and "vandalism" is "editing... in an intentionally disruptive... manner". If we were to follow your logic, then we should've renamed the articles to the longer, but more exact definition ("Validity, verifiability, and veracity of Wikipedia"), instead of keeping the titles short and the leads exact. But regardless - this is not an argument for merging, just for renaming.
  As for "what 'political' actually means" - I don't disagree with the observation that politics is omnipresent, but there's no doubt the most common use of the term is in the context of government - at least by our article, which deals almost exclusively with governments, states, inter-governmental organizations, forms of government, political participation, political values, etc. etc. In fact, the only parts of the article that seem to not deal with government are those two sentences that you quoted, and one of them is the title of a book whose "interpretation of politics... underlies the working attitude of practicing politicians" (Laswell, 1936). So for a lay reader the term "political" should be both "recognizable... natural, [and] sufficiently precise" to understand what this article is about - and that's all it needs to be in this context. François Robere (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, per the sensible and well-formulated argument and valid points made above by User:My very best wishes. Sal2100 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - (obviously🤷‍♀️) to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia per convincing arguments of User:My very best wishes - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Below is an additional comment by the user who expressed keep opinion already - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)) --> Oppose merge proposal: Already I disagree with the assertion that this is a poorly defined content fork. It is most certainly not. It has a specific definition of "political" for its purposes which it seems to adhere to and there is hardly any overlap between the COI editing article and itself, in terms of content. Additionally, politically motivated editing is not necessarily conflict-of-interest editing. COI editing, according to the article lede, is "when editors use Wikipedia to advance the interests of their external roles or relationships." That is to say, when they are paid for their edits, or are editing articles about themselves or people they know. Politically motivated editing, however, is not necessarily done in one's own interest, as not everyone who promotes a political ideology directly benefits financially or materially from the propagation of its associated rhetoric. It is a distinct topic that is clearly defined, it has enough material for its own article, and it is not accurate to describe this topic as a straightforward subtopic of conflict of interest editing. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4: But why you are voting again when you have already !voted once? Wareon (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per My Very Best Wishes. desmay (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a distinct sub-topic covered by scholarship. The Conflict of interest article is already very long. Scholarship includes: this book, Political Advertising on the Wikipedia Marketplace of Information, How Partisanship and Perceived Political Bias Affect Wikipedia Entries of News Sources, Digital era open government and democratic governance: The case of Government of Canada Wikipedia editing, Biased Representation of Politicians in Google and Wikipedia Search? The Joint Effect of Party Identity, Gender Identity and Elections. --ZZXW (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)<--- — ZZXW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this comment - 5 days (1hour and 6 minutes) of editing spread out over 2 years time period.- GizzyCatBella🍁 16:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to WP:SPINOFF, as per 4meter4. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Pure POVFORK. NavjotSR (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a valid WP:SPINOFF from Reliability of Wikipedia & Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia; organises the content into a cohesive narrative without the it being spread across two articles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge due to it being a significant topic (Wikipedia is left biased!11!) with significant coverage. However, I think the topic discussed here would made more sense when it is placed in a broader context. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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. Star Mississippi 14:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quran translations into Bengali language

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

Nothing surprising about seeing Quran's translation into another language. The article is looking like a directory and is unnecessary since List of translations of the Quran already exists. Wareon (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to provide far more information than can be comfortably merged into List of translations of the Quran. Jahaza (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I passed this at NPP in July as it seems to be a valid topic with a discussion of history and context, hence not just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of translations of the Quran or History of the Quran. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Mccapra notes. The notable translations of the Quran are so many that it is difficult that they be listed on one single list. We should have separate lists based on languages like this one. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I think that the history of translating the Quran into any major language would likely be a notable and encyclopedic topic. Contrary to the nom’s implication, while there may not be anything ‘surprising’ about the translation of the Quran un the modern world, historically it was a contentious and sensitive matter. Mccapra (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2022 (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 Adrenaline Mob. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Orlando

AfDs for this article:

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

Converted to a redirect per an AfD discussion only a few weeks ago, but recreated with new sources. The new sources, however, seem to be trivial coverage and press releases, and don't improve the claim to meeting WP:GNG. From my assessment, the strongest sources were already present in the prior version of the article, so restore redirect seems appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Policy Comment - This musician's article is part of a recent hubbub surrounding the notability of the band Stereo Satellite which itself resulted in two preposterously irritating AfDs in which many people posted passionate walls of text and not a dang thing was resolved in the end. The problem is the "musician is notable if in more than one notable band" and "band is notable if it has more than two notable musicians" guidelines; and the desire in some quarters to preserve text via redirects instead of deleting it, which in turn causes trouble when there's a dispute about where to redirect to. My own pleas for a higher discussion of all the contradictory policies that caused this mess has also gone nowhere. Good luck everyone; see the two AfDs for Stereo Satellite (first // second) and you will have little difficulty predicting how this new one on Mike Orlando will turn out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good chunk of people voted keep because they thought the sources (even if they may have been from a similar time period) proved notability. Very few only argued on the point that "two notable band members mean band is notable" (which I agree is a dumb clause). Why? I Ask (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case though, no consensus following the prior discussion would mean that the redirect stands. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per nom. Not enough in-depth coverage for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: None of these sources are press releases and are articles by fairly reputable heavy metal music magazines. Redirecting to his "main gig" also doesn't help because he's been in other acts that have garnered coveraged, and some of those acts (like Her Chariot Awaits after this AfD discussion) redirect to him. There's not really a reason to redirect when there's information here that would not be suitable for Adrenaline Mob. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the publications also publish more reliable, significant information, coverage like this and this are textbook press releases. No bylines, list of release dates and artist biographies, but zero independent analysis of the material released. Find me an article that actually provides an analysis of Orlando's contribution to a work and I'll reconsider my perspective. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that says there must be an analysis of an artist's work to confer notability. Just that there needs to be coverage by reliable sources. Brave Words meets that criteria. And having no byline is just how Blabbermouth.net operates. Not hardly any articles do. It's always attributed to the website. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The behavior here is questionable to say the least. Restoring an article that AfD closed with redirect less than a month later without any discussion (e.g. WP:DRV) seems wrong, especially when combined with pushing people to make a new AfD if they disagree, even if you think the previous one was "weak consensus" (it wasn't a soft delete). Adding sources doesn't change why the article was deleted (notability is based on all sources that can be found, not just ones present in the article). I feel a bit like even commenting on this sets a bad precedent—any editor can recreate an article they liked and demand it be reopened at AfD, so long as the previous AfD had few participants, which—let's be honest—most do. This should have been done with WP:DRV.
But that's not an AfD argument; there are other places that kind of thing can be hashed out. I guess let's look at the sources. Rosguill's concern that the articles read like press releases has nothing to do with source reliability, but source independence, which is also part of WP:GNG: For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent and WP:MUSICBIO: Except for...any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. Here's a source assess table summarizing the sources in the article (obviously, this is just my assessment, and may differ from others).

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dylnuge**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20100904004149/http://rockbandaide.com/5470/interview-with-rbn-artist-mike-orlando/	Interview transcript with no other content (i.e. "publication where the musician talks about themselves"), questionable	Blog with unclear authorship, not assessed by WP:RSMUSIC		✘ No
https://www.guitarworld.com/news/mike-orlando-premieres-burn-live-video		Guitar World is instrument-specific reliable, per WP:RSINSTRUMENT	Link to a video of a performance, with no other coverage about the artist	✘ No
https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/adrenaline-mob-guitarist-mike-orlando-to-release-sonic-stomp-dvd/	Press release with no other info	WP:RSMUSIC		✘ No
https://loudwire.com/stereo-satellite-mike-orlando-life-after-adrenaline-mob-crash-music-saved-me/		WP:RSMUSIC		✔ Yes
https://loudwire.com/stereo-satellite-glass-houses-video/		WP:RSMUSIC	Quoted in an article otherwise about the band	✘ No
https://blabbermouth.net/news/disturbed-adrenaline-mob-ex-rockstar-supernova-members-join-forces-in-stereo-satellite	Primarily appears to be marketing material from the band	WP:RSMUSIC	Coverage of the band, only a passing mention of Orlando	✘ No
https://bravewords.com/news/lunarian-feat-former-sirenia-singer-ailyn-announce-debut-album-dream-catcher-music-video-streaming	Appears to be a press release	Generally appears reliable and I have no reason to question Why? I Ask's assessment above	About an album; Orlando only mentioned in passing	✘ No
https://blabbermouth.net/news/adrenaline-mob-guitarist-mike-orlando-joins-brazils-noturnall		WP:RSMUSIC		✔ Yes
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}}.

I looked around for additional sources as well, but didn't find anything worth adding. Honestly I think this is a notability edge case. The sources covering him are mostly doing so in a very limited manner. The press-release like articles seem to be Blabbermouth's journalistic style, but at the same time newswire coverage that he's got an album coming out certainly is a bit different from, say, a review of that album in terms of how well it establishes that there's independent coverage of the artist. If he's a notable artist, it surprises me that there's not any reliable independent reviews of his solo work—no guideline requires that, of course, but usually when looking for musical artist coverage reviews are the first thing that comes up. And while it's again not a requirement, I'm not confident there's a good article that can be built out of this selection of sources. Ultimately there just aren't a lot of sources for a modern artist (per WP:NMUSIC: The number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras. Reliable sources available (especially online) increases as one approaches the present day, though this is explicitly stated for songs, it seems reasonable to apply to artists as well). I think this isn't enough to convince me of notability for an artist working in the modern online era, and I'm inclined to support upholding the original AfD result of a redirect. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 14:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what of the redirect that goes to him? It's unrelated to his work for Adrenaline Mob. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely it should be deleted. A band that's not notable enough for an article but is fronted by a notable person might redirect to that person; if neither is notable there's no reason to keep a redirect that doesn't have a valid target around. At any rate, the presence of redirects into the page isn't an argument for keeping it if the subject isn't notable. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 06:21, 5 November 2022 (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 the content. Renaming / covering the cancelled event can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 14:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 F4 Indian Championship

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

The season will not happen - via [7]https://www.autocarindia.com/motor-sports-news/indian-racing-league-dates-announced-formula-regional-f4-india-postponed-426223 SandoLorris (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2022 (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/2022 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It will happen in different date as of Autocar (magazine) https://www.autocarindia.com/motor-sports-news/indian-racing-league-dates-announced-formula-regional-f4-india-postponed-426223 Contributor008 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will happen. Although it won't be the 2022 season but 2023 at earliest. SandoLorris (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a planned season that will not happen. But this does not mean it doesn't pass WP:GNG, and if it does, it needs to be re-written, not deleted.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2023 F4 Indian Championship, put existing content under § Cancelled 2022 season or the like. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - No valid deletion rationale provided. The provided source can be added to the article and/or 5225C's move request can be dealt with on the article talk page. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 21:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per above suggestion by 5225C. An article should not be deleted just because the event has been postponed. - Jayadevp13 15:23, 6 November 2022 (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. There is consensus that this is't appropriate for mainspace, but the creator wants to work on it. AGF that sources exist and this can be improved before resubmitting. I would caution against an immediate re-submission. Star Mississippi 14:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J.H. Higdon

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

There don't seem to be any significant independent secondary sources about him. The 16 sources in the current article include primary sources (census and the like), sources which don't mention Higdon (like TSHA, the book on photographer Glass[8] or the Kansas Historical Society. Looking for further sources provided no useful results either. Fram (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Texas. Fram (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Photo cr permission shows that this is a genealogy article. Name shows up quite a bit in newspapers.com, but this appears to be mainly advertisements. No WP:SIGCOV appears to exist. Curbon7 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to Timtrent, who accepted this at AfC. Curbon7 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 Thank you for the ping. I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If kept, I will be pleased. If deleted, I will correct anything I feel needs to be corrected in my reviewing. Reviewers get better when their work is sent to AfD, which allows the community to decide as opposed to a single reviewer. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup just wanted to make sure you're aware of this discussion Curbon7 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fram - Thanks for your input. I will be working on fixing some of the issues that you point out over the next week or so. - Matt Matt (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2022 (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 13:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kareo

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

I'm not able to find sufficient coverage to demonstrate that WP:CORP is met. The references in the article are either obscure sources of dubious reliability or just routine news of funding or acquistions. My own searches have not turned up better coverage. SmartSE (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and California. SmartSE (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine coverage, funding news and acquisitions along with some PR. Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 13:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only thing the article has is routine announcements for funding and acquisitions, and I wasn't able to find anything of substance. Article fails WP:NCORP. - Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability per our standards. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2022 (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 Life with Derek. ✗plicit 13:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life with Luca

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a not-yet-released television film, not yet demonstrated as the subject of sufficient production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFO. As always, we do not want to keep or maintain an article about every single film that enters the production pipeline -- with some admitted exceptions for upcoming films that get a lot of production coverage, films normally aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia until they're actually released and garnering critical reviews.
But the volume and depth of sourcing here isn't sufficient to establish pre-release notability; there are just four footnotes, of which two come from unreliable non-WP:GNG sources like Nickandmore (a kids' TV blog) and Narcity (sort of a Canadian Huffington Post), and a third comes from a teen pop-culture magazine and essentially just verifies that the film is in production without actually saying anything very substantive or notability-building about it. So there's only one genuinely solid and notability-supporting source here, and that's not enough. (And even if we overlook the issues with the teenybop magazine and accept it as a second notability-assisting source anyway, two acceptable sources still isn't enough sourcing to override NFO.)
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if there's sufficient coverage once it's released, but this isn't enough for it to already have an article now. And since this is a spinoff of a television series that already has an article of its own at Life with Derek, any content about it can simply be contained there until there's enough solid sourcing to spin a separate article back out for the film. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Life with Derek per nom; we know it's happening but that's about it. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - coverage is minimal, and in reference to Life with Derek. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2022 (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 13:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Byrne

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

No notable wrestler. Fails Notability. No independent sources with a in-deep coverage about him about him as wrestler or author. Goggle news gives 0 results [9] (just one mention in an article about Jon Moxley) HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Ohio. Curbon7 (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source provided is a significant news site and all the sources I could find is user-generated. Roostery123 (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoga Ishikawa

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG - doesn't appear to meet NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how can I improve this page,thanks. The content is almost like his wiki page in other language. Yuz0324 (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Japan. Curbon7 (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per comments below and attempted close (with the wrong template) by the nominator. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 17:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination attempt of Imran Khan

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

It hasn't even been an hour yet, and facts haven't been established yet, especially whether Khan was the target, which this article suggests. Clearly fails WP:DELAY. A merge into the main article Imran Khan would be much more suitable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtgamer79 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clearly fails WP:RAPID. 😋 (FBDB) Meh, whatever, I'm not too fussed. But since the main article was under ECP, and editors are less BOLD on such pages, it seemed like it would be best for it to have an article. ~~Whatever this one ends up as doesn't really fuss me~~. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Badly formatted, somewhat disruptive nomination, ignoring WP:RAPID. I also didn't forget about DELAY (which BTW, it isn't possible to "fail", it is rather something to consider, which I did). The main page is under ECP, which I consider to be somewhat stifling of BOLD edits (it is sort of supposed to be), and this page needs BOLDness. An (apparent) assassination attempt on a former leader whilst they are campaigning to get themselves reinstated is the sort of thing that is absolutely not going to be forgotten by next month. Especially since it actually did result in at least one death. Virtually all major news outlets seem to be picking this up. What is the point of starting this when it will be a clear keep by the end of the 7 days? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point why this page was needed, it was significantly expanded from the original stub into a small (but sectioned) article by Quantum XYZ, who would not have been able to edit the main article with this information. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: this is a significant event, and deleting and un-deleting will cause more pain than simply keeping the article whilst details. Wikipedia editors are way too gung ho with deleting articles recentlyryan RecentlyRyan — Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. We should wait a few more hours to see if we have enough details to make this into a full article or to merge it with the Imran Khan article. Cr 8900 (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100% speedy keep - My first comment in an AfD discussion. Anyways, article is now significantly better and the event is VERY significant. Quantum XYZ (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with original page Imran Khan, as none of the information still confirmed and authentic and all the news are still conflicting with each other. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2022 (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 12:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ProSama 2010

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lithuania. PepperBeast (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in any reliable sources found. Not notable. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the subject is notable, it should turn up at least some articles about it when I use a search engine on it. All I saw was download pages and generic company lists. There have been no added citation since 2012.

Roostery123 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. It is lacking in even the most basic trivial mentions and routine blog reviews that fail to show notability for other articles, let alone anything approaching significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The software was released in 2010, and that is not so long ago that sources would go dark across the board like that if there was something out there. GBooks, GScholar, JSTOR, TWL, Newspapers.com, archive.org, all bone dry. - Aoidh (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Somauroo

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

My WP:BEFORE search uncovered no evidence that WP:GNG is met. We used to consider professional snooker players inherently notable, but that is no longer the case. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find significant coverage. DeleteLurking shadow (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2022 (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 but leaning keep ever since Muhandes's overhaul. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sai University, Chennai

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

Disputed draftification. Suffers from WP:CIRCULAR, fails WP:NCORP and is a private university. I'd have sent it back to draft, but that would have failed 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drafting was the kinder call but if that's not acceptable, then this article isn't acceptable in mainspace. An article sourced in the main to Wikipedia? Nope. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb I'm afraid unilateral Draftification was unavailable to me. See WP:DRAFTOBJECT. You are entitled to suggest that it be draftified as an outcome of this AfD if you choose. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant no criticism, but that the author should have taken the option when presented to them. Right now I'm good with delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb I had no thought to imply that you were offering a criticism. It did not feel as if you were. Forgive my possible ambiguity in my reply above, please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. I tried to gently educate the user but it didn't work. If they won't read the rules or listen to advice there's nothing we can do about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT, and although a search finds one or two hits, it's not enough; likely WP:TOOSOON given how recently this was founded. (If only some editors weren't in such a hurry to create articles prematurely!) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, confirmation of people that teach there, but nothing about the school. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The AfD banner was removed from the article and has been reinstated 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that any university in the West that has been established by an Act of Parliament or equivalent is accepted without question as a subject for a Wikipedia article but universities in India or Africa are not? One of the mysteries of Wikipedia. I also note that what makes a university subject to WP:NCORP is being run for profit, rather than just being private which applies to all of the American Ivy League universities. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: To answer your question in short, the issue is in-depth coverage. But why ask rhetorical questions instead of a) !voting and b) spending the time to find more sources and improve the article? Muhandes (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:CIRCULAR is not a reason for deletion, unless you are proposing WP:TNT, which you are not. As for notability, I think there are, or should be, enough sources to show minimal notability for a newborn university. Muhandes (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It took me two minutes to correct all circular references and another 10 minutes to locate quite a number of in-depth articles about the university and its inception. These are not even all the sources I found, just what I could use to support easy facts. I'm sure there is even more in local newspapers but I don't have the time (or inclination) to spend on this. --Muhandes (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate @Muhandes:' work on the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep secondary Reliable sources are trustable WP:RSP, in Wikipedia guide line this news sources is pass WP:THEHINDU. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC) -strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Universities established by state legislation are invariably notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The work done by Muhandes to improve sourcing to my mind easily brings it over the threshold for WP:ORGCRIT.OsFish (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2022 (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. Sourcing offered after the relists pushed the discussion towards keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Banks

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No signicant coverage nor reliable sources. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we deleted the database results, you might be able to see some of the sources. I can't... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep - a quick Google WP:BEFORE search brought up quite a bit, including quite a lot of articles at F4W - [10], as well as [11], [12], [13], [14], etc. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did the user make some research before the nomination? Maybe Banks is not the biggest star in the world, but his career is covered by reliable sources. Not just RESULTS [15] [16] [17] Of course, many of the sources are around the SpeakingOut movement [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] The article needs a lot of work, but Banks is notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All those are routine annoucements of work or scheduled work and don't constitute significant coverage for what a BLP. We will go through each and every one of them. The fact there are routine annoucement of wins or loses or annoucements of being out of contract is no different to the same kind of scheduled safety documentation that for example a rig work gets. It all routine annoucement. None of it secondary. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are secondary sources focusing on him, not routine like cagematch (which doesn't focus around him, just results of every wrestling event). He is a wrestler, so his work is to wrestle and many of the sources focuses on his work as wrestler, like an actor which work is to appear on movies and TV. Get a contract with the biggest promotion in the world, being released after sexual allegations against him and being contracted by other promotions after the incident while other wrestlers complain is notable, supported by reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR is fairly specific and the definition as used by Afd in a rough consensus has tightened in the last few year. That doesn't seem to have happened with sports folks although there has an external update by the VP rfc. The routine coverage as evidenced by yourself, wouldn't be accepted at an actor Afd as WP:RS sources. They are true definition of what constitutes annoucements. They are not RS. It is a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 11:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", Banks has performed and won titles in WWE, PROGRESS, RevPro, IWRG, among others. All of them, notable promotions. Also, there is the speaking out allegations, which are covered in several sources. Sources provided, again, are not routine. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - routine coverage, wouldn't class as notable in the case of referring to WP:NACTOR, as i cant see any notable significant honour. The sites referred to as "notable" above look like Pr articles for small wrestling leagues before his stint in the WWE. I could be wrong but from what i can see i'm not entirely sure it meets the requirements needed.

Melancholyhelper (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor above has a long history of adding unsourced content to wrestling articles and I now happily believe the editor doesn't care one way or the other about it. scope_creep^Talk 23:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot about this. I will go through the references in the morning. scope_creep^Talk 00:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per reasons above and meets criteria in wp:PWBIO (specifically appearing in multiple NXT UK PPV’s). RF23 (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot about this again. I will do it in the morning. I'll set it an alarm. scope_creep^Talk 21:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The thing with WP:SIGCOV is that a topic is "presumed" to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage. Just because it doesn't have sig cov doesn't mean it isnt suitable for a stand-alone article. Besides the article in question passes WP:PWBIO, and WP:BEFORE should've been carried out before nomming the article. Lee Vilenski and HHH Pedrigree have argued some valid points on why this article should be a keep. GR86 (📱) 13:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because it doesn't have sig cov doesn't mean it isnt suitable for a stand-alone article." I have to say, that's a first for me! What valid points? That he passes WP:NACTOR??? Also, there's no point going after the nominator - the nomination's valid and that's a clearly ad hominem argument. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A WP:BEFORE was done for this article, for the N ^th time. If the article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, which is another name for WP:GNG, then its not notable. Lastly an approach was made to an experienced editor in good standing, who is a sports expert and he said its perhaps borderline but he couldn't see much on it at all. If that expert had a said, he is definently worth keeping, then would have been no Afd. scope_creep^Talk 15:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets look at the reference, starting with the blocks above, to tell the new audience why its notable. References need to significant (indepth), independent, reliable and ideally secondary.
Ref 1 [29] This is a list of stories on Banks. The first one is 2 small paras, the second is routine annoucment, the third one is annoucement, the fourth is passing mentions and so on. They are profiles.

Ref 2 [30] Small story about abusing his girlfriend and being dropped.

Ref 3 [31] Is non-RS.

Ref 4 [32] "Appears at ‘Big Lucha’ show in Mexico". Another routine annoucement.

Ref 5 [33] Is non-RS.

Ref 6 [34] "seven more announced for WWE UK tournament" Annoucement of matches taking place.

Ref 7 [35] Out with injury. Not significant.

Ref 8 [36]] Pretty decent match report.

Ref 9 [37] Routine annoucement of being dropped. Same as ref 2.

Ref 10 [38] Duplicate of above. "Appears at ‘Big Lucha’ show in Mexico". Another routine annoucement.

Ref 11 [39] Three small paras. A routine annoucement.

Ref 12 [40] Abusing his girlfriend story and being dropped.

Ref 13 [41] Reports a statement by Banks. WP:SPS source.

Ref 14 [42] Being dropped. Routine annoucement.

Ref 15 [43] Annoucement of a match. 3 small paras.

Ref 15 [44] Non-RS.

So looking at these sixteen reference that have been produce in response to the question is he notable. Of the 15. 3 are Non-RS, leaving 12. 3 are being dropped, which is taken from a press-release, leaving 9. Two are duplicated, routine annoucements appearing at ‘Big Lucha’, taken from a press-release, leaving 7. Three are 3 or 4 small paragraphs which are not significant, leaving 4. One is reporting an injury, leaving 3. One is list of small listicle articles, 1 is injury which is also a 4 small para article and 1 is fairly decent description of the match, but with no analysis.

All of these articles are churnalism and true WP:MILL listicle articles that constitute routine annoucements, being merely present and reporting that presence or lack of presence. None of them satisify WP:SECONDARY for what is a WP:BLP after all. Satisfying the criteria here, is as equally valid as if it was somebody like Obama. If the man is really notable, where is significant coverage. It's not in one of these 16 refs. When you see the same stuff recorded in multiple sites, then you know its driven by press-releases. If may be considered WP:SIGCOV by the quantity by fan folk, but the references are stonkingly bad. If they're odd bits of quality here, then fine. But they're isn't, they are atrocious and unacceptable in this day and age. Not one of them is valid. scope_creep^Talk 15:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here are some additional sources that establish notability. RF23 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by User:HHH Pedrigree. I disagree with Scope Creep's rebuttal on some of the sources as there is enough to qualify for WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 15:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice HTML people! A WP:BEFORE in proquest turns up these articles of SIGCOVand more in the Manawatu Standard about Travis Banks, among other sources. These are NOT WP:MILL. An Early life and education section could be developed from these.

1. Wrestler home to show skills RICHARDSON, Daniel. Manawatu Standard; Palmerston North, New Zealand [Palmerston North, New Zealand]. 13 Aug 2009: 18. https://www.proquest.com/internationalnews1/docview/314387795

2. Travis has dreams of ring perfection RICHARDSON, Daniel. Manawatu Standard; Palmerston North, New Zealand [Palmerston North, New Zealand]. 12 Aug 2010: 14.

https://www.proquest.com/internationalnews1/docview/744506774

3. Piledriving his dreams Kilmister, Sam. Manawatu Standard; Palmerston North, New Zealand [Palmerston North, New Zealand]. 25 Mar 2017: 1.

https://www.proquest.com/internationalnews1/docview/1880506145

4. From Bulls to; Y; bodyslams Manawatu Standard; Palmerston North, New Zealand [Palmerston North, New Zealand]. 25 Mar 2017: WM.17. https://www.proquest.com/internationalnews1/docview/1880527946

5. Bulls wrestler taking on the UK's best Kilmister, Sam. Manawatu Standard; Palmerston North, New Zealand [Palmerston North, New Zealand]. 03 June 2017: 3. https://www.proquest.com/internationalnews1/docview/1904940926

6. In this Wall Street Journal article about Spirit Airlines, Travis Banks is cited and quoted. C-Suite: Travel -- The Middle Seat: Furor over carry-on baggage fees --- Many in U.S. pay the surcharge because fares are low; even Ryanair hasn't gone that far McCartney, Scott. Wall Street Journal, Europe; Brussels [Brussels]. 15 Oct 2010: 27.

https://www.proquest.com/europeannews/docview/758026025

While SIGCOV has already been established, 7. Wrestling stars join Download line-up Loughborough Echo; Loughborough (UK) [Loughborough (UK)]. 06 Mar 2019: 36. https://www.proquest.com /europeannews/docview/2188088056

Superstars Trent Seven, Walter, Rhea Ripley, Jordan Devlin, NXT UK Tag Team Champions The Grizzled Young Veterans, Travis Banks, Gallus and many more to be announced, will descend upon Download for a weekend of high flying manoeuvres, action-packed matches and unexpected surprises. NXT has made a massive impact at the festival in previous years, performing to capacity crowds throughout the weekend, featuring impressive debuts, shocking returns and exciting moments. Joining headliners Slipknot, Tool and Def Leppard and a host of acts already announced for the annual rock spectacle

8. WWE star Travis Banks backs British Bulldog for Hall of Fame as campaign grows

Holloway, Henry. Daily Star (Online); London (UK) [London (UK)]. 17 Jan 2019. https://www.proquest.com/europeannews/docview/2167997172

WWE star Travis Banks has backed The British Bulldog to go into the Hall of Fame as the Daily Star Online campaign rolls on.

NXT UK wrestler Banks - known as the Kiwi Buzzsaw - hailed Davey Boy Smith as an “amazing” talent when asked about the WWE Hall of Fame bid by Daily Star Online. Banks said he fondly remembered his tag team matches alongside Dynamite Kid as the The British Bulldogs. Entire story in Manawatu Standard about Travis Banks: 9. Wrestling superstar heads back home July 8, 2019 | Manawatu Standard, The (Palmerston North, New Zealand) Author/Byline: JOHN WEEKES | Page: 002 | Section: NEWS Kleebis007 — Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless I am misunderstanding how RS works in wrestling (which very well could be), it seems to me like RF23's additions (or at least three out of the four) add up to GNG, even without taking a close look at what was provided by Kleebis007. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and none appears to be emerging with valid input on three sides Star Mississippi 14:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boneless meat

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

WP:N, plus lack of WP:RS; all but one source is a blog post Wallnot (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to me to be self-evident that this is a Thing. Arguably more suited to a dictionary than an encyclopedia, but I can't see a good argument for delete. JMWt (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a common category of meat product. Discussions of meat products will often use "boneless meat" to discuss this type of meat. There is definitely an indepth, policy-compliant encyclopedia article that could be written here. W 42 18:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Delete and merge into respective articles with a redirect to meat. I'm finding the SYNTH and DICDEF arguments convincing. Meh. Keep I guess. I suppose this could be expanded to include other boneless meats...boneless roasts, chops, etc. Their uses and the reasons for using them over bone-in items. This is one sad article, though. I never understand why food articles get so little love. We all eat lol. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]
~~Yeah, it looks like there's a ton out there. I spent a few minutes and doubled it, created two new redirects. It can be expanded easily, I think.~~ Valereee (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Boneless wings are extremely popular, especially in the United States. This is borderline trolling. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So much for AGF. Wallnot (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular isn't how we assess notability. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is how we assess. And I have no idea why anyone would think this was trolling. It's completely reasonable to look at where this article was when it was nominated and understand why it was nominated. There aren't even any good google hits for "boneless meat". Valereee (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Chicken as food, Beef, etc. and redirect... somewhere. Meat, maybe, with a small section in there? I actually think this is improper synthesis, although not the worst. There's little that's meaningful and verifiable that can be said about boneless meat as a whole. I'd change my mind if Winner 42 could give an example of their assertion that Discussions of meat products will often use "boneless meat" to discuss this type of meat. "Boneless chicken", "boneless beef", "boneless roast", sure—but do we have a source that contrasts boneless meats from different animals? There is stuff on total sales, like [45], but that's not quite enough for me, especially because boneless meat constitutes the majority of sales in most places—just put it in the meat article. Usually the contrast is between bone-in and boneless meat, so information on the latter (and the former) belongs in the meats' respective articles, for better contextualization. Ovinus (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DICDEF. I mean, it pretty much tells you what it is without much help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note this article was created (converted from a redirect to Meat) by a serial sock. Valereee (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used this article to find out more about boneless "chicken wings" which, as it turns out, are not any kind of wing! This content belongs somewhere, a merge at worst, but preferably keep. 209.44.206.239 (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Remove this mess of a stub that was created by a serial sock. At most, merge bits of it into relevant articles such as Chicken as food. Most of the sources are weak. Sure, the NYT source is valid, but it can go with a merged item into something about the specific type it refers to. It is not generally about boneless meat. Who is voting keep on this? Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with more specific sources. Boneless meat in a culinary context, and the process of deboning in an food preparation/agricultural context, certainly meet GNG and are distinct enough topics to warrant this article. 193.37.240.45 (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is there are no sources on boneless meat in a culinary context; there are sources on boneless chicken, boneless beef, etc., and putting them together in an article is impermissible WP:SYNTH. It's also not at all clear why this subject is distinct from Meat, Chicken as food, etc.—given that the article is a stub, the handful of good, sourced content could easily be merged into these articles. Wallnot (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there are not better sources in this article, but I did a cursory Google scholar search and it appears there are absolutely existing sources with in-depth coverage of boneless meat in general. BlackholeWA (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could link the search, as I am not seeing any/many. Wallnot (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously PRODed but deprodded by article creator, they added two sources, which just trivially mention Simmi Ghoshal while listing the cast. This fails WP:GNG, as a WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions while listing cast, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, unfortunately, none of these meet the WP:SIGCOV requirements. Therefore, WP:GNG is failed. On WP:NACTRESS- all of the current roles are minor. The infobox of the current article considers The Ghost (2022 film) to be a notable work, but Simmi was not one of the starring characters, merely listed among the cast section playing a minor character. In the other two TV series, Barrister Babu and Maddam Sir, they are not one of the main roles but listed as a minor recurring role, failing a significant role requirement. VickKiang (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additionally, the creator of the article, User:Simmi Ghoshal, has a name identical to this actress and promotes Simmi Ghoshal in their user page, Simmi Ghoshal is an Indian actress working in Film as well as Television Industry. Simmi has worked in several Films, Short Films, Webseries, Ads, Dailysoaps and Documentaries, indicating that they might have a WP:COI on the topic and might be writing an autobiography. This diff also had an unsourced, promotional early life section. VickKiang (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, there is insufficient support for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG or WP:ENT notability. There is the recent film The Ghost with non-RS or questionable sources promoting Ghosal and other cast members as having a "crucial" (or similarly-phrased) role (e.g. [46]), but these brief mentions are WP:PROMO, and even if the role is significiant, one significant role is not enough for WP:ENT, assuming this film is notable. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note enough in-depth coverage to show they currently pass WP:GNG. As Beccaynr says, this might be a case of TOOSOON.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 7 November 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 14:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public Ivy

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

This page is a compilation of lists from two books, one published in 1985 and the other in 2001. The books themselves do not appear to be especially notable, and at this point are extremely outdated. Additionally, a quick Google search for the term "public ivy" reveals that it is not in common use by reliable sources. Internetronic (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - A quick google search shows that the term is still regularly used by various college admissions consulting firms, and even has a page on the Fulbright Commission’s website (link). The term has even been used by news outlets such as the New York Times (link). Although the term might not be hugely popular, it still meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (see WP:NOTABILITY) and the article should be kept. If you have an issue with the article, I’d recommend improving it rather than deleting it. This article has been around since 2005, I see no reason to delete it now. - Willsteve2000 (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any evidence in your reply that WP:NOTABILITY is in fact satisfied. An obscure page on Fulbright's website and an offhand reference in a single NYT article are certainly not sufficient to fulfill the requirement. The indisputable fact is that the article is simply a copy-pasted list from two unofficial commercial guides written over twenty years ago. The article is un-improvable considering the criterion for what is and is not a public ivy seems to be "whether it was published in one of these two arbitrary guides".

Consider creating a page for the guides themselves and include the schools there, providing you can provide sufficient secondary sources establishing the reliability of said guides. Internetronic (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If your qualm over the article meeting WP:NOTABILITY guidelines is regarding the use of the term "public ivy" in secondary sources, then you can find the term being used in more sources than just those two. For example, the term has been used by The Atlantic (link), the Washington Post (link and link), Newsweek (link), NPR (link), the Economist (link), and many others. There are even plenty of scholarly sources that discuss the Public Ivies too (link); the information from some of them could even be added to this article to improve it and expand it beyond the "copy-pasted list from two unofficial commercial guides". Furthermore, I fail to see how creating two separate articles for the two guides which discuss the same topic would be an improvement on the singular article that currently exists. - Willsteve2000 (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this in another reply but I will do so here as well. The Atlantic article is an example of citogenesis, its source being the exact Wikipedia page in question. The Newsweek article is from 1991. (Not that old articles are never relevant, but I'm simply pointing out that this is an extremely obvious example of cherrypicking). The Economist article includes one passing reference, which is not sufficient to establish notability. The (very brief) Planet Money article mentions "the eight public ivies" in passing, but does not explain what criteria it is using. (Its source, the Department of Education, does not use the term.) This leaves two cherrypicked Washington Post articles, one of which is an opinion piece. I'm sorry, but I do not think that this can justify a Wikipedia page that is simply a regurgitation of two commercial guides, effectively serving as a de facto advertisement for the guides themselves and the listed schools. Internetronic (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Willsteve2000 which demonstrate that the term is used in reliable secondary sources, many of which could easily be incorporated into the article for an update. "Quick Google search" = poor WP:BEFORE, given the sources found. Improve and update, rather than waste everyone's time at AfD. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend actually reading the sources Willsteve2000 copy-pasted from WP refs before rushing to their defense. Internetronic (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Term obviously still in wide usage. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Wide usage" seems like a bit of an overstatement if you're referring to Willsteve2000's references. The Atlantic article directly cites the Wikipedia page (see WP:CIRCULAR), the Newsweek piece is from 1991, and the Economist piece includes exactly one passing reference. Internetronic (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the term stemming from the books is a seminal piece that reframed how the general public views public colleges, in that they can offer high quality education on par with private schools, usually with larger endowments and prestige. Public Ivy is still used by high school college counselors, and the fact that the books were written as far back as 1985, along with 2001, and are still being used and sold around the world makes the argument even stronger for meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Per the (Wikipedia Intro to Deletion Process, "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." All of the other articles I've seen proposed for deletion were extremely poorly written, plagiarized completely, or things/people I've never heard of or so obscure and niche with so few page views that no one would notice they were gone. According to the (Wikipedia Page Views Tool, the page has gotten nearly 2.6 million views since July 2015 and an average of almost 30,000 page views a month. These stats don't necessitate keeping the article on their own, but the article can be improved without being deleted; regarding the content, I think improving to the article would be better than deleting it or splitting it up into different pages. Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable find evidence that these books are in fact "seminal pieces". The vast, vast majority of mentions of "public ivies" are from unreliable sources such as college prep programs and academic consulting firms.

The article takes these two unnoteworthy commercial guides at face value to determine that "public ivy" is a legitimate category of higher education institutions. I disagree. Wikipedia should not be used for what is effectively an advertisement. Internetronic (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think many of these college rankings are marketing and advertisements, U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking has flawed metrics yet still sells magazines and makes money from the ad revenue from their site; their hospital rankings are also flawed but effective marketing. The New York Times on September 15, 2022 published an article criticizing these college rankings and described the University of Michigan as a "public Ivy." I referred to the books as seminal for coining or popularizing the term "Public Ivy", since now most people know the phrase even if they don't know it came from a book. However, I get your point that a lot of the Google results pull up college prep programs and academic consulting firms. This article doesn't advertise those firms though, just talks about the rankings from the books. Wikipedia has a lot of articles for other books and colloquial terms, yet those usually aren't seen as advertisements. Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable term that has been used in many sources. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make me a sandwich

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

Article is little more than a collection of uses of the phrase. There are no sources detailing the history, usage, impact, etc. of the phrase in itself to establish notability. Several (quite old) calls for deletion on the talk page though this is the first AfD as far as I can tell. WPscatter ^t/_c 08:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WPscatter ^t/_c 08:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Language, and Discrimination. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads as though it's from 'Know Your Meme'. Agree with all of above from @Wpscatter Marleeashton (talk) Marleeashton (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDATABASE, because this article is essentially a database of indiscriminate news reports of a phrase known to be used in a sexist way. A GScholar search does not yield much to help add encyclopedic context, e.g. Drakett, J and Rickett, B and Day, K and Milnes, K (2018) "Old Jokes, New Media – Online Sexism and Constructions of Gender in Internet Memes", Feminism and Psychology; "Online Games, Gender and Feminism in". The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society; Jamieson, K. H., & Dunn, J. (2008). The 'B' Word in Traditional News and on the Web. Nieman Reports, 31-33. Beccaynr (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I honestly and quite frankly think that it can't be saved and I am no expert but I could sense some sort of POV in the article somewhere. Wikiwow is just W0W!! (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Gray

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

Bio of a fitness expert sourced to various columns she has written, quotes from her, instagram and other non-independent sources. I don’t find any in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources and pretty much any run-of-the-mill health columnist would have similar coverage. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Health and fitness. Mccapra (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 09:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seven Tips to Stay Sober at a Wedding isn't a valid source, as much as you'd like it to be. Being on Ninja Warrior is good, but I don't think she made it very far, or was even shown on TV for very long. I can't find much of anything for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a number of mentions of her in semi-reliable sources, but they are all trivial, from what I can see. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any other relevant notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Katan

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

Does not seem to pass WP:GNG T v x1 07:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, Ukraine, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems significantly unnotable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Katan wrestled at least 579 matches according to Cagematch.net in Canada and the United States. There are 11,222 results for "John Katan" on Newspapers.com and 2,792 results on NewspaperArchive.com. According to SLAM.com, "For many years, Katan was considered Canada’s top heavyweight. He was a big attraction and travelled widely; particularly memorable were his three trips to Australia and New Zealand." I think he clearly passes the general notability guidelines. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All matches in non-notable events.T v x1 07:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. He held three titles and wrestled in three NWA World Heavyweight Title matches. I think you're falling victim to recentism, "Articles deleted despite concerning notable trans-historical subject matter, because recentist article has given only flimsy and transient details available in news reports without the accompanying historical perspective, and because editors proposing deletion don't bother to research." —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references above look good. It's quick to find more in newspapers.com - headline in a 1932 Chicago Tribune article. Perhaps User:Lee Vilenski can reevaluate their delete. Nfitz (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the major expansion since the nom and the coverage found at Newspapers.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to WP:HEY. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TIM Defender of the Earth

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

Article is nothing more than a plot recap with inadequate sourcing. BEFORE turned up some passing mentions on a couple blogs. Though the book was shortlisted for a prize, there seems to be no SIGCOV. The author has no article of his own, which further brings notability into question. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author had an article of his own, but it was redirected without discussion in 2019. It looks like he's got three or four books that have sufficient RS'ing to clearly meet V, but nothing has come out in the last 10 years. Perhaps it would be better to merge this and the other article we have, The Black Tattoo, mention the other two, and keep the article about Enthoven and his works. Per his website he no longer appears to be an active childrens' author but is making appearances. Overall, it's kinda "meh" with neither the books nor the author being super notable, but a single article covering all seems a better alternative than throwing it all away. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for that. Sounds like this author is more notable than any one of his individual books. Would be a big project and probs require input from one or more taskforces. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ with Sam Enthoven. I agree with Jclemens: This should have some place at Wikipedia, but as the extent of secondary sources for this book is unclear so far, a combined article seems best. I could find some coverage, though: There is a paragraph with a bit of commentary in this review article, and the book appears on p. 27 of Kong, Godzilla and the Living Earth where the eponymous "giant, genetically engineered dino-daikaiju" is rated as an example of "Mad Frankensteinian science". Daranios (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Based on the additional reviews found by Bennv123 this seems to be notable, so I am fine with keeping the article. If alternatively a combined article is created that does justice to all three/two subjects, also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article can't be Merged with Sam Enthoven as long as it is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on WP:The Wikipedia Library brings up reviews from literary magazines and journals, including but not limited to: Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, Kliatt, School Library Journal. Besides Kirkus Reviews, the rest of these reviews refer to the book's title as Tim, Defender of the Earth, so I also think this is the WP:COMMONNAME and the article's title should be changed to reflect that. Bennv123 (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Weak Keep. The five reviews found by Bennv123 definitely meet WP:RS requirements (and are also independent and secondary). While most of the refs are short (e.g., Kirkus review is just over 200 words), IMO they are not routine announcements and pass WP:SIGCOV as my guideline is approximately the Wikipedia:One hundred words essay (though some might have higher standards), with the exception of this which is debatable at around 150 words. Further, IMHO this ref from Daranios, while leaning on the shorter side, borderline passes SIGCOV (the source is also reliable, independent, and secondary). Therefore, WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK's first criteria are met. VickKiang (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews and sources found already in this AFD show that the book is able to pass WP:NBOOK on its own merits. The suggestion by Jclemens to create a single article to cover the author and all of his books may ultimately prove to be the best way to present the information, but this book has enough coverage that the decision on whether or not to do that does not need to be decided here. Rorshacma (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let the record show that I believe this article now passes notability requirements based on the improvements made during the course of this AfD. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2022 (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 12:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Masked Dancer (Russian TV series)

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

Unlikely to pass WP:NTV. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination, having received few or no comments from any editor, with no one opposing deletion, and the article itself having never been proposed for deletion in the past, is eligible for soft deletion. Barring further participation, the closing administrator can treat the AfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't really see anything that supports the article's notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2022 (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. Consensus is that coverage was not sustained, and there is no clear merger target identified. The last relist looking for that didn't bring on any additional ideas, so it's doubtable another spin would. Star Mississippi 14:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly Parton challenge

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

Per the previous PROD which was removed, there is not much evidence of notability here. wizzito | say hello! 06:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. wizzito | say hello! 06:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's got sourcing in LA Times, Time Magazine and CNN, all about the challenge. Well over the bar for GNG. It was a brief thing a while ago, internet fad, but it's been covered by media. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the sources are from January 2020. A burst or spike of news reports like this does not automatically make an incident/concept notable. A lack of lasting coverage suggests the topic is not notable. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks pretty trivial to me. Deb (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Internet phenomena. BD2412 T 02:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support a merge, but it's probably better off at List of Internet challenges. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Oaktree b. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems more appropriate for KnowYourMeme. SWinxy (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm leaning towards a Merge but will leave this open for further comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SUSTAINED, coverage was limited to an extremely brief bout of coverage over a single news cycle in late January 2020, with no coverage since. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2022 (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. Acknowledging the work that has been done on this article since the nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadis

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

Unable to find sources addressing the company "directly and in depth" (per WP:ORG); only secondary sources in the article are news of mergers and acquisitions, etc. WPscatter ^t/_c 07:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Engineering. WPscatter ^t/_c 07:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already contains 27 citations from a wide range of sources. I googled this company and the search engine generated some 5 million articles referring to the firm. As already mentioned in the article, the firm has been responsible for the design of some of the largest and most important projects in the world including the Millau Viaduct. The article can certainly be expanded and improved: please see WP:BEFORE and WP:CONRED. Dormskirk (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A wide range of sources? Just under half of them are from the company itself, which do nothing to establish notability. The others are notices of acquisitions or mention the company in passing. None of the sources, nor any I could find, establish notability. Notability guidelines for companies are quite strict; see WP:SIRS. If they are as responsible for all those projects then surely some decent articles about the company on its own merits can be found. In absence of those sources, I maintain the nom. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All company citations now removed (except the one to the latest financial results) and the smaller projects now deleted. Dormskirk (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arcadis is a major international company with a VERY long history and tons of coverage. Nom's answer to Dormskirk exposes the errors at the base of this nomination. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which errors? If I have done something wrong here please be specific so I can learn. WPscatter ^t/_c 20:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Also) Look for company names from before the name change such as: Heidemij, KNHM and Nederlandsche Heidemaatschappij. Egel _Reaction? 20:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Support Ormskirk and Gidonb comments. Paul W (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arcadis / Nederlandsche Heidemaatschappij is one of the engineering firms that made the Netherlands. For example, these are 7 pages of sources about Nederlandsche Heidemaatschappij from the years 1940-1945: [47] The Netherlands would not be such a big exporter of agricultural products without Arcadis / Nederlandsche Heidemaatschappij. --Egel _Reaction? 19:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Givi Sarkisian

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

With an apparent COI and the Russian page nominated for deletion, this article about a Russian musician is a remarkable mish-mash of primary sources, completely irrelevant sources and dubious sources, articles about orchestras and performances the subject may or may not have played in (and which anyway confer no notability per WP:MUSICBIO). When you're sourcing articles to www.myvisajobs.com and Google Drive, I'd say you're in the weeds... Fails WP:GNG; WP:NMUSICOTHER, too. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Armenia, and Russia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The articles in Ru-, Uk-, Tg-, Uz- and Simple English wikis were created on October 23 by User:Старий Джен which has been indefinitely blocked for spam. Here the draft was also started on October 23 by new User:Amongusches. Is this enough for sockpuppet investigation? 91.193.176.162 (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have just deleted it from ru.wiki: no notability, just an average member of several orchestras. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pistola Aut. Celmi

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

Fails WP:GNG, moved to draft and banged right back into mainspace, undersourced stub on a non-notable weapon made by a redlinked manufacturer. Note "Only a few hundred were manufactured and were mostly used by the Uruguay State Oil company" - quite apart from why an oil company would want to have pistols, searching for the weapon yields less than 2 pages of possible results, including the draft log for the new page patroller who draftified the article! No WP:SIGCOV, in other words... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uruguay. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find any sources for this gun. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U-Line Corporation

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

This is a straightforward G11 speedy, entirely sourced to the company's own self-promotional media but for a single sentence sourced to this routine coverage of a transaction and a reference that appears to be subtle spam for someone else. Despite the fact that there is no time limit on G11, and despite the fact that there have only been a combined 13 words added [48] [49] since the article's creation in 2008, G11 was declined. So here we are. Delete as unsalvageably promotional. I don't see SIGCOV, but even if there's an article to be written here, this isn't it. Companies don't get a free pass on spamming just because they fly under the radar for 14 years, and it's a shame we'll now have to spend volunteer time on re-establishing what the community has already reached consensus on in the form of the CSD policy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, note also that the self-congratulatory "firsts" list is pure copyvio of [50]. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: An article on a company/brand, sourced mainly to their website (the About page is now here), and still substantially the article submitted by the WP:SPA article creator in 2008. I am not seeing evidence that the company attained notability; the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel item on the acquisition of the company falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. A redirect to Middleby Corporation#Products and brands is a possibility. (I also thought of merging text on the 2014 acquisition under Middleby_Corporation#Notable_acquisitions, but U-Line is unmentioned there or in coverage of subsequent purchase of further firms in a similar sector, so a partial merger is probably WP:UNDUE.) AllyD (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Killick

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO, refs are passing mentions only, no in-depth coverage. This is a contested PROD, by the author who likely has a COI. MB 04:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. MB 04:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self-written by the man and wholly lacking any significant coverage. Note that Killick removed the AfD notice on his page, too. Don't disrupt the process, User:LeighKWiki. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why do you want to delete this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeighKWiki (talk • contribs) 05:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to break it to you, but it appears that you're not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article yet. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can you not just allow this page because its a kind thing to do? -leigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeighKWiki (talk • contribs) 05:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Being kind" isn't a policy based rationale for keeping it. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

im sorry for deleting the code im new to this wikipedia thing but i strongly oppose this deletion i think it should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeighKWiki (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable, no sources found. No charted singles, no historical performances. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added sources and notable info LeighKWiki (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has been mentioned very briefly a few times in articles that are about his cousin Matt Smith, but that does not mean he can write his own biographical article about his overwhelmingly average life and non-notable bedroom musical achievements. Outside of that family connection, which is itself irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED, I can find nothing on Killick beyond his own uploads. Good luck to dude as he gets started, but Wikipedia is not a promotional service. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and Wikipedia's job isn't to "be kind" to them by keeping the article anyway — musicians get articles by having coverage about them in reliable sources, demonstrating that they pass one or more of the notability criteria in WP:NMUSIC. But this claims absolutely nothing about Leigh Killick that would pass NMUSIC, and it's referenced to a YouTube performance clip and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of his cousin, not to any reliable or notability-building coverage in real media. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for aspiring future stars to promote themselves advertorially — it's an encyclopedia, on which making it comes first and then a Wikipedia article follows, rather than vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ i think you're cutting a bit deep here. this page is notable enough for a space here. it has not been used for promotional reasons and is strictly an archive of achievements and information LeighKWiki (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- One !vote per editor. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: LeighKWiki has repeatedly removed the AfD notice from the article. Can we simply close this discussion and stop wasting editors' time? Why? I Ask (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment i only did that because i didn't understand what it was i have not done it since. can we just keep this page up since it is notable enough and isnt false and simply for archival reasonsLeighKWiki (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
such a drag man like honestly — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeighKWiki (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a drag... for us. This discussion is full of blue links to policies describing how someone does and does not get an article in Wikipedia. Explore them. Then put some of this energy into getting a gig. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as blatant self-promotion and an attempt at notability by association. No evidence of substantive coverage in reliable sources upon which to base a BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely strong. Part hoax, part VERY non notable. Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia, not a platform for kids to tell lies about themselves. A 17 year old did not get Matt Smith into acting over 17 years ago. Lies and vanity. Delete and consider blocking for deliberately introducing false information. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They already have been blocked. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - leaving aside the concerns noted above about self-promotion and the validity of some of the content of the article, the subject clearly does not currently have anything like the level of notability that would justify there being a Wikipedia article on them. Dunarc (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - The subject is clearly not notable enough to warrant having a Wikipedia page and this is a very obvious case of self-promotion. Also, it seems like the author moved this page from the Draft to the Article space by themselves without submitting it through the AfC page. ― Dulcetia™ 09:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:55, 9 November 2022 (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 Twisted Method. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derek DeSantis

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

May meet notability, but is currently a resume Nswix (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or potentially Redirect to Twisted Method): A search for sources only revealed minor mentions for being part of the band. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Twisted Method Not independently notable, and this non-neutral resume shouldn't be used to start a new article.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electric vehicle ownership in Australia

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Numberguy6 (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Numberguy6 (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This indiscriminate mess only confuses any reader and urgently needs some WP:TNT.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purge with fire - This just isn't an encyclopedic article. This reads more like a bunch of auto manufacturers decided to all get their names in the page. Nothing in here is salvageable, and I'm not sure the topic is suitable for inclusion anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a long, largely incomprehensible list of facts about electric vehicle sales in Australia. There is no attempt to approach this as an encyclopedic topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit this never should have been spun out of Plug-in electric vehicles in Australia, it should have been removed with the edit summary "removed cruft". My favorite part is the sentence that has 30 citations. All of this appears to be the work of a SPA. So yes, this is a delete vote. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should I delete the remainder of Plug-in electric vehicles in Australia#Electric vehicle ownership for the same reason? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: I've went and boldly removed the section. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I rarely swear on Wikipedia, but holy shit. This is just a lead and nothing else. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I technically created it by spinning it out but the content is not inherently mine, so I don't feel comfortable deleting per G7. That said, I am not opposed to deleting this. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not normally a fan of invoking WP:TNT on articles with significant content, especially since draftify is an option. This is an exception. If the author really wants to make this page work, starting with structure and organization is almost certainly easier than refactoring what's here. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An ill-defined topic and completely impenetrable. I note that despite their involvement, TheSandDoctor is amenable to deletion. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ji-han (actor)

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

AFD as PROD is contested. Failed WP:NACTOR as the actor didn't show enough notability. While he has participated in Produce 101, in my opinion his participation does not guarantee notability. Google searches on his name before Seoul Halloween crowd crush turns up almost nothing. His involvement in the crush incident is not notable, failing WP:VICTIM. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and South Korea. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had actually looked for references in Korean for this actor yesterday to see if I could flesh something out for WP:WAM, but there wasn't much. He ranked number 98 on Produce 101, so he received little attention. His part in the drama Today Was Another Nam Hyun Day (오늘도 남현한 하루) got drive-by mentions after he was selected a model for dessert cafe Sulbing. I couldn't find anything about him being cast in The Season of Kkokdu (꼭두의 계절) until after his death. Unfortunately, he fails WP:GNG and is only receiving coverage about his death. ✗plicit 07:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
He was casted in The Season of Kokkdu and was known in other activities. Itaewan crowd crush is not a criminal event. Because he is known in multiple event, WP:Victim is not applicable. Regardless of his death, Produce 101 contestant who has significant role in one notable television drama is notable. Ghorosu (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, While he has had several different roles I don't think they are significant enough to pass WP:NENT. The majority of the sources discuss his death which is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the search was difficult due to the language, could not find enough in-depth sourcing to show they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clints Well, Arizona

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

This on proves to be a bit, um, ambiguous. It's referred to fairly often as a reference point, but after that it is unclear exactly what that point is. The topos and thus GNIS plop it on a spot that used to be a string of tourist cottages and is now an RV resort, and there is also a forest service campground of the same name a few hundred feet west. But if you follow the road south to the main road, there is a gas station and cafe there, and it appear that it is this spot that most people mean now. So it comes across as more a locale than a spot, but either way I find nothing showing either of these to have ever been a town or the like, and I couldn't find any historical information on the name. Mangoe (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. No evidence the subject exists, the two sources cited in the article are not reliable for the fact it's a populated place (and in the case of "AZ Hometown Locator", just not reliable). Even if it is a populated place GEOLAND required legal recognition to qualify for near-automatic notability, populated places without legal recognition have to pass the GNG (and it clearly doesn't). I can find it mentioned as a place [51] [52] but nothing that establishes it's a populated place. Hut 8.5 18:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obinna Nwosu

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

Taking this to AFD as PROD is likely to be contested. The article failed WP:GNG. He is not elected to any position, so he failed WP:NPOL. He as the youngest candidate to run for governorship might be notable, but there are no significant coverage, and I didn't think being the youngest to run for a position does not guarantee any notability. Google searches only show few article, confirming him to be the candidate. Most searches on his name point to other Obinna Nwosu. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Nigeria. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I knew creating a stub will be risky. I knew it might not pass vetting, but for the sake of experience and after reading the Wikipedia:Stub article, I had the courage to create this one anyway.

Let me just walk the house through my thought process that led me to creating the article. I believe if you understand what I was thinking when I created the page, you'll understand why I did because, I'm not bad at creating Wikipedia articles

I had never created a "stub".I have done articles, lists, categories, etc, but never a stub. I read the Wikipedia:Stub article and I thought this will meet the criteria - Credible, verifiable, but needing expansion. Anyway, If the article doesn't meet the standard for a stub, it's okay. However if it does, I'd be glad. Cheers.

There is also a Wikipedia article that encourages people to create stubs because others (not necessarily Wikipedians) might see it and help in expanding it.

Amaekuma (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a youngest candidate doesn't make anyone notable. Contributor008 (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Contributor008, here is a page for the Youngest British soldier in World War I. So because they are British and not Nigerian, their article is notable enough to stay up right?

@User:Amaekuma I never see from which countries does the politician belongs to. I only see his/her office (You can see my created articles all of them are about politicians from a small country who held office in National Cabinet) and Obinna Nwosu is youngest candidate in Abia State not in the Nigeria so it is not necessary to create articles on candidates. Contributor008 (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Giles

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. The current ref is a list from Shazam. However, the chart is not recognised per WP:CHART, hence it fails has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Otherwise, this is a minor rapper, my WP:BEFORE search did not find additional refs that demonstrate WP:GNG or other criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN is met (P.S. the Spotify profile apparently just has 7 monthly listeners). VickKiang (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Comprehensively fails WP:MUSICBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No charted singles (in charts we recognize as RS). Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons. Numberguy6 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither GNG or NMUSICIAN.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 7 November 2022 (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. Updates to the article since the deletion nomination have provided sufficient reliable sourcing to demonstrate its notability. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riordan, Arizona

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

Added to GNIS from one of the various editions of Arizona Place Names; I found the entry in a different edition, however, and it states that this was a Santa Fe RR station. That's reasonably consistent with the topo maps, which do not have it as a name, but do show it sitting next to the "Riordan Overpass" on I-40. I had to restrict searching a lot because the Riordans were quite prominent locally (their mansion is a state park in Flagstaff, about five miles east), but I came across nothing suggesting that this was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was a populated place back in the 1910s and 1920s as indicated by: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this about the WWI draft station, this, showing there was a school there, this, again about the school, this about the mill, this, a list of rates from populated places, this about voter registration, this, this, this, this, this, about a home in Riordan, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, again about the school in the 1930s. Apparently it was a station, which developed into a small community with a mill and a school, which eventually declined with the decline of the railroad.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Onel's source finding. I suspect it may also have an entry in Thelma Heatwole's compendium of Arizona ghost towns, I'm working to get that book from my library. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Per WP:V, in order to have an article on a populated place we need a reliable source which says it's a populated place. GNIS is not reliable for this (see this discussion), and "AZ Hometown Locator" isn't reliable at all, if it does anything other than recycling GNIS. Sources need to do more than "indicate" that something is a populated place for us to use them for this. Trying to infer the existence of a populated place from sources which say there was a school there, there was a sawmill there, etc, is original research. Verifiability and no original research are non-negotiable core policies here. WP:GEOLAND also says that populated places without legal recognition need to pass the WP:GNG, and passing mentions in newspapers clearly do not do this. Hut 8.5 13:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have found a good number of older newspaper and book sources which cover Riordan, which is a ghost town and not a modern community. I've added a bit to the article, including 1920s and 1940 population figures. More work will need to be done, but the 1969 news article in the Arizona Republic, now in the Riordan article, is a good example of significant coverage. This article was basically unsourced since the Hometown Locator site isn't reliable, but the article is no longer unsourced. More work will follow in the next few days. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article itself has many sources that contradict the claim that it was not an inhabited settlement. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just enough coverage of the history to support an article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Vieira

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

Fails to meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and the GNG; lack of SIGCOV from both my google searches as well as the article's sources itself. The name seems to be common as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Brazil. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim to significance is made in the article, which appears to be a database entry. A7-able. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 03:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDATABASE - this subject does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability standard I can see. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2022 (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 Rick Roberts (musician). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She Is a Song

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

Fails GNG; no SIGCOV. Searched far and wide. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AllMusic by itself is not sufficient to establish notability. Numberguy6 (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rick Roberts (musician) per nomination found no additional coverage myself. QuietHere (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rick Roberts (musician), a search of Newspapers.com found a good deal of coverage for Windmills, but absolutely nothing for this, suggesting that this album was not the subject of any interest or coverage when it was released. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rick Roberts (musician). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rick Roberts (musician) per above arguments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guest of the Woods

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

This page on a YouTube film (see trailer, just 169 views has previously been drafitified and PRODed by User:Lopifalko and User:Onel5969, but is now recreated by the original creator. However, this fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, it has a IMDb link (non-RS, non-SIGCOV) and a database-like entry with routine info on release dates and an image gallery (potentially RS but obviously non-SIGCOV). My WP:BEFORE search found no more sources, therefore, GNG or NFILM are both failed. I also disagree with WP:ATD through draftification, a minor YouTube released film IMHO does not have potential for future notability and is not borderline notable, though if more refs are found please ping me. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't for promoting your film. No sources found, pass the SALT please. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turn up no coverage in reliable sources on the film. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NFILM and no reliable sources. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly promotional. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhincodon (creator & collector)

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

Reviewed through NPP. Guy whose claim to fame is buying some NFTs. This source only mentions him in passing and the only other sources I could find were a local newspaper and an interview on the questionably reliable "HYPEBEAST". Fails WP:GNG. Spicy (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage beyond the three already in the article. Likely TOOSOON, but it's not a GNG at this point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG and BIO, briefly in news for buying some stuff. Well done to nominator for finding the local press article. Original article had some peculiar WP:OR, which looked like either self-promotion or an attempted prank. Storchy (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository for factoids like who buys what useless thingies for tons of money. Seriously tho, this biography fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, or WP:NBUSINESSPERSON criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2022 (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.