Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 08	August 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fnality International

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

Non-notable blockchain company, seems to only be mentioned in PR pieces, promoting whatever they're selling to investors. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. Skynxnex (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - distinct lack of WP:CORPDEPTH and non-press-releases in that WP:REFBOMB - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Bebia Mawa

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

Related to COI Noticeboard discussion. A search for references and evaluation of the ones on the page show these are likely from a content farm. All published in May 2023 right before the Wikipedia page was created. CNMall41 (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PR pieces and Nigerian media articles that appear to be paid-PR pieces. Nothing found in Canadian sources we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, Nigeria, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No indication of being notable. Reads like a puff piece. Totally promo. Refs seem to be PR. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 06:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs are Pr ,lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete 205.253.10.83 (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks SIGCOV Princess of Ara 13:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Though draftifying can be possible, as it has potential and can be rewritten to make it less promo. Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus that the sources provided do not contain SIGCOV. I'm fine with restoring this article to Draft space if anyone would like to work on this article and a Redirect can be created from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lakin

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

This former athlete biography article has one dead-link reference, one external link to the player's statistics. After further searching, I am unable to find additional sources to establish notability. It is missing Encyclopedia biography information such as Early life, Career information since 2013, Personal life, Achievements and honours (if any). Created on 27 July 2011. JoeNMLC (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, this confirms 54 appearances in England's professional football league. Decent amount of coverage online, such as this and this, COMMONSENSE says there will be more offline given this guy was active 30 years ago...a bad nomination where no BEFORE has been performed. Giant Snowman 20:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the many points made by GiantSnowman above. I also found [1] and [2], Article needs Improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Gazette article is a match report and clearly routine coverage. ~~The Times article seems to be a passing mention but I don't have access to the full article.~~ The Times article is a passing mention. The articles I found at Newspapers.com and ProQuest are all passing mentions like match reports unless I'm mistaken. If there's significant offline coverage surely some would show up there? Robby.is.on (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG (I can only find routine coverage like match reports and a brief note about his argument with manager John Sitton). He played a total of three seasons in the third and fourth tier of English football, among which only the 1992–93 season was a successful one for Leyton Orient. I don't see any indication that he attracted much attention during his playing career, and certainly nothing after it ended. Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:COMMONSENSE tells me that there isn't much likelihood that this career lower league player gained any notability at all. Alvaldi (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been a stub article since 2012, if someone wanted to fix it up they could. But why say keep when all you have is an infobox and one single sentence. Unless it was expanded to a decent agree and I agree it could be a keep article if done up. However there is nothing there. At the moment I side with the delete voters unless someone decides to create something here. Govvy (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is not a unanimous consensus to Delete. If "article needs improvement", now is the time to do that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. I added several references, including a replacement for the broken one. He's probably notable both as a player and as a coach/manager. One of the references is from the Daily Mail, which normally isn't a reliable source, but I reached it from Ebscohost. I suspect that the Daily Mails sports coverage is generally reliable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAILYMAIL makes no exceptions for sport. I have removed the article. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, all of the references Eastmain added to article except for the article by the The Sunday Times are match reports and transfer announcements (coaching appointments) and therefore routine coverage. The articles I found at Newspapers.com and ProQuest are also passing mentions like match reports. I had hoped the Sunday Times article would have more but it turns out it is about "fly-on-the-wall documentaries" with the only mention of Lakin being "First, the co-manager John Sitton sacked his friend, the long-serving defender Terry Howard. Then, he offered to fight players Barry Lakin and Mark Warren". The bottom line is: There is no WP:SIGCOV for this lower-league player and coach. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Robby.is.on that the newly added sources do not come close to significant coverage. These are routine transactional coverage or match reports that often mention Lakin only once. I appreciate the effort, but I don't see how it gets the article in compliance with the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there is enough there and more out there.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid stub, not every source in the article meets WP:GNG but enough do, and sources will be hard to search for anyways due to being quasi-pre-internet. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: not every source in the article meets WP:GNG but enough do Which ones? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, most of them are non-league. I'm still surprised he's been covered comprehensively and routinely for non-league stuff but we can't find a single source on him during his Leyton Orient days. Common sense would say that this would be easily sourced if he had played twenty years later. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the coverage could possibly be described as "comprehensive". All references in the article are extremely short, barely going beyond "Lakin has agreed to take over as manager at <club>". Robby.is.on (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not comprehensive in the sense any one individual article is particularly comprehensive, but rather that in terms of non-league he would frequently be written about routinely. It's just frustrating - I don't have the ability to search for 1990s era sources or to even check which teams he scored against in the league, whereas now with the loss of the SNGs we have minor league baseball players who easily pass GNG even though they've accomplished nothing sporting (this is just a rant you can ignore.) It's clearly been an untended garden for a long time looking at the history, but I'm surprised a player in the old Division Two would never have been covered significantly, and the fact it's been in such poor shape for a long time reflects either that there's nothing out there or that pre-internet sources can be difficult to find. At worst, we should redirect to a list of Leyton Orient players, since we can WP:V the fact he played for them. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how complete Newspapers.com and ProQuest are but as mentioned above they threw up quite a few match reports but zero SIGCOV. (You can get access to both Newspapers.com and ProQuest through Wikipedia Library.) We're lucky to have these resources for English players, many other countries don't have archives like that at all which results in articles of players being deleted with record number of appearances or goals for their national teams. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone checked the British Newspaper Archive? That would probably be the best place to find potential SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. There's 40 results for ""barry lakin" orient" and it's all match reports and brief mentions of transfers (example: "Midfielder Barry Lakin, who scored Saturday's match winner against Bromsgrove in the third round, has had his loan spell from Leyton Orient extended for another two months"). There's 14 results for ""barry lakin" chelmsford" – same. There's one for ""barry lakin" helsinki" which does not mention a move to Finland for Lakin suggesting he never played for HJK contrary to what our article claims. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know why people are adverse to match reports, they do help a lot. That's part of the sport. That's why I haven't really done a proper vote, I see this one down the middle a probable no-consensus. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot write an article based on ten "Lakin scored the second goal in the 72th minute"s. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, there are thousands of articles of top level footballers that simply are sourced with signing, match reports and stat mirrors. :/ Govvy (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different problem. Those footballers don't lack SIGCOV like Lakin does. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed with Jogurney and Robby about the lack of non-routine, SIGCOV, IRS sources. GNG is not met, and there is zero presumption of offline sources existing accorded to footballers now that NFOOTY is deprecated. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified and the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb, which sources are SIGCOV of this person? JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are very passionate debaters also at this AfD! This was my conclusion when I read through the sources. Now I would need to get back that. I will do so soon. gidonb (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't think a "no consensus" close is necessary here yet, I'd hope that the discussion would develop a little further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think match reports and coverage of changing teams is sufficient to meet WP:GNG or every pro player would merit an article. I also don't think managing a team at the 9th level of British football is grounds for WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Maradu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary Magdalene Church, Moothedam

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

This article has been tagged as unreferenced for eight and a half years. There is no indication of notability directly addressed in the article–much of the article is devoted to a unreferenced description of a minor local religious figure. The only coverage found during my WP:BEFORE came from the local Catholic diocese and some seminaries noting that their students ended up as ministers at the church. As best I can tell, the most notable and verifiable fact about this church is that it has a rather pleasant modern edifice. ~ Pbritti (talk) Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Kerala. Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maradu, including the picture, which is used in the Maradu articles on many other wikis. I add references there and to the entry on List of Servants of God. Jahaza (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's swell, thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leontiev Victor

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

Sourced only to a blog post, can't find any other mentions of this person during a WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:NBIO. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Photography, and Russia. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No ru.wiki entry and nothing turned up in an online search in Cyrillic. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hits on parts of his name, but nothing found about this individual. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ChrisJem (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as above. Aneirinn (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. One reference only, effectively no significance. DrJuiceBoy (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I gave the format of the article incorrectly, but I showed the basic information and links to sources. Someone corrected the article very well, thanks for that. I will try to scan and place its archives both on websites and on Wikipedia. MBlinoff (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to Obtain a Residence Card for a Family Member of an EU Citizen in Spain

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

Fails WP:NOTHOWTO. This sort of content is more suited to WikiHow. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe and Spain. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal clear WP:NOT failure. SportingFlyer T·C 21:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NOTHOWTO. Arguably a good candidate for PROD instead of AFD BrigadierG (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't belong here. WP:NOT

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Andre🚐 04:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I had half a mind to PROD this when it came across my review queue but I didn't get around to it. Bensci54 (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not written in an encyclopedic format.ChrisJem (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. – GnocchiFan (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior stated reasons. Aneirinn (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. miranda ^:3 02:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTHOWTO Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above. IvanMishin0 (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatantly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 14:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wattegama Central College

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

Article is unsourced and I was unable to find decent sources, even when searching in Sinhala. No evidence of WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Best source I can find is Wijeya (translated), which mentions the school only once. English search results only yield social media. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur fails WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any sources or references required to justify notability.Dan arndt (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G3 - obvious hoax. Creator also blocked by me for repeated hoaxes.‎. Giant Snowman 21:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis Island national football team

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

Potentially fails WP:V and WP:GNG. We know that Jarvis Island has no inhabitants so I can't see how they could put together a football team! Furthermore, I can find no evidence of their alleged 8-0 thrashing of Kiribati in New York in 2006. Article also states that they qualified for the 2023 Pacific Games but I can see no evidence of this. Their top scorer "George TylerKed" yields no hits in searches. The article seems to be pure fantasy/hoax. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Oceania, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not the first hoax created by @TCastolll44:. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G3 AfD not needed should have been speedy G3, the creator shall also be indef. Next admin that sees this should lock it up. Govvy (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of conservative artists

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

I'm not sure a "list of people who are conservative" is tenable. For one, often calling someone a conservative is using your own judgment, as opposed to something that's a fact like endorsing Trump or being a registered Republican. This list has many cases - Mike Love denies being a conservative, yet he is on this list. Chris Pratt says he isn't either, yet he is on this list. They could be conservative to you, but it's not a fact. We have people who are apparently conservative because they endorsed a Republican (Adam Sandler), in some cases many years ago, which doesn't make you conservative on its own. And unlike lists of people who endorsed someone in a certain year, we can't be certain thes have all aged well. Vera Miles endorsed Eisenhower in 1956, is that proof she is conservative right now? Or even was then? --Quiz shows 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Lists of people. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as various kinds of WP:SYNTH: inferring people's political positions, grouping together a scattering of beliefs spanning countries and generations as "conservative", and throwing in some remarks about donations from "the entertainment industry". A list that includes a staunchly anti-religious libertarian like Frank Zappa; a QAnon proponent like Jim Caviezel; the Biden-endorsing Dwayne Johnson; the Soviet dissident Andrei Tarkofsky; the Democrat-turned-anticommunist Walt Disney; the pro-FDR, anti-McCarthy, eventually pro-Nixon John Ford; both Chopin and Kid Rock; etc., etc... That is not an informative list. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic and possibly BLP violating. "Republican" and "conservative" are often different things - just ask Abraham Lincoln! casualdejekyll 21:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok with the broad idea, but referencing needs to be greatly improved. If kept, a rename is urgently needed - "artist" on Wikipedia means "visual artist", and "conservative" means very different things in the US and (frankly) just about everywhere else. Something like List of creatives in the arts with right of center views or something. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a tentative !Weak Keep? Not to characterize your comment. Asking for janny's sake. JFHJr (㊟) 02:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose. It hardly seems to matter at the moment! Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's definitely possible to have a "list of conservative Xs" but it needs to pass WP:NLIST and may be restricted to politicians and commentators. This list does not appear to and has massive WP:SYNTH concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Assuming this subject is a valid concept, it's at best a category. Conservatism doesn't mean the same thing even across the English speaking world/interwebs, across times and nations, or even discrete political topics. And this article fails WP:NLIST. The edit history full of BLP vios merits deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 01:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly vauge and BLP violating. I would also support triming to only sourced entries. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the delete reasoning above, and in the meantime this probably ought to be blanked for large-scale poorly sourced and unsourced claims about the political beliefs of living people. The footnote on Vanilla Ice says "he claims to be apolitical," the footnote on Alice Cooper says he "has described himself as extremely non-political," but they are still both listed here as conservatives. And also the source for Prince being a political conservative is an article that says he never voted and that "he slighted Republicans and Democrats — 'neither of them is getting it right.'" Elspea756 (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term conservative is extremely subject to an individual WP:POV. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and suggest we are in WP:SNOW territory here. Per all of the above, and also just to note that this is rather US centric (yes there are British ones, but there is a whole section just about Hollywood, for instance). The definition of conservative is fluid, as has been noted, and especially so when you start looking at the global context. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree this list/topic is subject to an individual WP:POV. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the very solid reasons listed above. I'd also like to draw editors' attention to the very similar List of American conservatives and List of American liberals (and this article obviously substantially overlaps in content with the former), which, while (at least superficially) better-cited (though there are many uncited entries on both), have similar problems of scope and likely synthesis (who decides who's a "liberal" or a "conservative"? by the standards of what era? is it worth listing politicians whose views are within the mainstream of their party, or private individuals who haven't made contributions to political theory or discourse? etc). Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective and can vary widely in different countries and time periods. Suonii180 (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nom this is not tenable. Lumps together subjective perceptions of artists' political persuasions as "conservative" – WP:SYNTH. (And Frank Zappa definitely does not belong on this list.) Netherzone (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone; even if fully-sourced, it would be a hodge-podge of dubious value to readers. For whatever it's worth, many of our lists are poorly-maintained and filled with WP:OR like this one; it's something to keep an eye out for. DFlhb (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edgemead Primary

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

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, primary schools are presumed non-notable unless they pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. A WP:BEFORE is showing no coverage that would satisfy either of these. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely unsourced and unlikely to be notable. User has been notified before about the need for sourcing in other discussions, so there's really no excuse for creating something without a single source. Greenman (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haven't done source analysis but I found these:

BrigadierG (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that this is significant coverage of the school instead, but of events that happened at the school. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sources found are about things happening at the school, not seeing notability about the institution. Oaktree b (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage about the child dying at the school, nothing that adds notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poor quality, and not sourced. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 21:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Reeve

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Played 2-bit roles, nothing substantial, Nothing on Google News[3], Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Mathias Mumassabba

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. References are PR, interviews. scope_creep^Talk 18:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Kenya, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO. The Star linked isn't for the Toronto Star, but what appears to be a Kenyan newspaper, with a thinly-veiled byline similar to the numerous ones in Indian media we see here, PR fluff in an otherwise RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References all look like content farms. Promotional references which were clearly influenced by someone related to the subject. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete 205.253.10.83 (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rotimi Odunlami

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are PR and interviews. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 18:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage is not reliable. All articles were posted within the last month?? Some have no author bios and even the Vanguard reference has a disclaimer showing no editorial oversight. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete 205.253.10.83 (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet GNG or any SNG. The awards do not support a claim to notability Princess of Ara 13:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PR Diva

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

Publicist. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Puff-piece article. scope_creep^Talk 18:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More PROMO, using RS Nigerian newspapers to publish PR fluff pieces. Nothing found for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as low tier PROMO with only low quality awards and no other coverage BrigadierG (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete 205.253.10.83 (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The main consensus here is that this article is in need of improvement and, perhaps, a split. But that is editorially work, not something I can enact in a deletion discussion. I hope there are editors interested in improving this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of prehistoric mammals

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

WP:SALAT, I can't find good numbers for the total number of fossil mammal species, but to give an example, in the Miocene, an 18 million year time period, there are over 4,500 described mammal species.[4] Given that the history of mammals spans 200 million years 66 of which they have been the dominant terrestrial vertebrates, the total number is likely well over 10,000, which given the number of new mammal species described every year (see 2022 in paleomammalogy for an example) seems entirely unmaintainable. See also the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prehistoric insects and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extinct plants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split The current scope is unmanageable in both temporal and categorical dimensions. This should be split into separate lists - I would suggest by taxon rather than period, since we already have a few of those; e.g., List of extinct cetaceans, List of extinct rodents. This could be done for other extant high-order clades for which we do not yet have lists. Note that this is not required for fossil-only taxa (say, Deltatheroida) because the main article invariably already contains that list. Note also that this demonstrates that this catch-all list duplicates plenty of existing content, which is to be avoided. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that creating a number of smaller lists is a good idea (per Elmidae. This list could then become a list-of-lists, helping readers to navigate to the appropriate specific list. My feeling is that "What extinct mammals existed in prehistoric times?" is exactly the sort of question an intelligent school-kid might ask, and it's our job as an encyclopaedia to do everything we can to help them find an answer. The topic is good, but the current approach could be vastly improved. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Prehistoric mammals exist. Give ideas perhaps on how to sort it into smaller list. Wikipedia exist as an encyclopedia and an Wikipedia:ALMANAC, and size doesn't matter, WP:NOTPAPER. Dream Focus 12:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does it need work? Yes. does it qualify for deletion? No way. "Impossible to maintain" is a personal judgment. Just because you don't personally want to maintain it or think it's bad doesn't mean it should be zoinked. leaving out shabby incomplete lists as bait to annoy autistic people and thus lure them into our trap ("ill just make these 12,582 little fixes and then get back my chores") is Wikipedia's stock in trade jengod (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though a split of some kind seems right, this is never going to be a definitive list, so another option might be to pare it down to "notable" prehistoric mammals (which still might need to be split per Elmidae); "notable" being perhaps those species with a significant research record vs those whose info was recorded but then never studied in depth. Something that brings the topic down into the WP:SALAT range. - - UtherSRG (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Split and convert to list of lists. Definitely meets WP:NLIST. More importantly, the scope of prehistoric mammals is much narrower than prehistoric insects or plants, so we can rein it in and avoid running afoul of WP:SALAT. (Ideally we'll come up with solutions to those as well one day, but that's beside the point) This list is already in sections so it's doing well with regard to SALAT. I think some level of notability (blue links only, or blue links plus red links with SIGCOV but no article, etc) could possibly help as well. —siro χ o 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should probably be converted into a 'list of lists' by taxonomic Order or geologic Period (or both) but that doesn't require deletion. It has a sufficiently well-defined scope as to be, at least in theory, maintainable. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weightlifting at the 2023 Arab Games

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Contested drafting, bringing it here because of that. I would support a drafting first before deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and United Arab Emirates. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's an international event and likely more coverage exists, just that requires searching in various non-English languages where search results are already likely limited.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too detailed relative to the sport and event. Weightlifting at all Arab Games and annual editions of the games is as much detail as we should carry for THIS sport and event. No objection that something here will be upmerged. gidonb (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an international sporting event and coverage should be out there. Examples that I found in just a quick search included this fairly detailed write-up of the weights lifted by different athletes. Then there will be national news coverage, e.g. this. There's no indication that the info is false, just lacking inline refs. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since other sports of the 2023_Arab_Games have their own articles, weightlifing could have it's own. Meanwhile meets GNG as well.Ma.Sa.54 (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Adhoori Mohabbat

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

Article needs to be moved to draft space, but earlier draft article already exists. After remove a forum post, the only source in article is a basic database dump page. Several good sources are needed, hence should be moved to draft. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Metcalf

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

Non-notable former gymnast that does not have the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG nor WP:NCOLLATH. Let'srun (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Arizona, and California. Let'srun (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG. She also fails to meet either WP:NGYMNAST or WP:NCOLLATH. Merely being on a college team does not show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim van Assema

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

Footballer with 24 minutes in Allsvenskan. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Though (brief) news exist [5] [6] [7], he has done nothing of note. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sv:Tim van Assema. Govvy (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient sourcing in the Swedish entry. gidonb (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails GNG because of a total lack of significant coverage. The sourcing on the Swedish article is routine/not independent/of dubious reliability. Dougal18 (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL and still a young player. We obviously need to add more text and sources, like the Swedish article. Let's at least give it some time. // Mattias321 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTBALL does not exist anymore. Giant Snowman 17:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per above. I found [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], amning maner more Swedish and Dutch sources. Young player with Allsvenskan experience with ongoing career. Article need simprovement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Dougal18 about the sourcing in the sv wiki article (as well as the links above from Das osmnezz - although some of those links are paywalled so I can't properly evaluate them). Article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one source from those listed above contains non-paywalled non-trivial content, but it's also just a brief transactional interview from when he was 17 and so fails YOUNGATH anyway. Everything else appears to be routine sports news. JoelleJay (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with above sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources being inaccessible (e.g. due to paywalls) doesn't exclude them from being used to establish notability (WP:NEXIST is related); could we get some feedback on those paywalled sources from someone with access?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Woll Jr.

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

Is a case of WP:BLP1E for his failed judicial nomination. I propose redirecting this article to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies, which already lists the subject. Let'srun (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that we create a separate article collecting all unsuccessful judicial nominees, so that we can preserve mere information on their circumstances. BD2412 T 17:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think renaming those judicial appointment controversies articles (which has been proposed at Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies) and perhaps considering a format change or merge of sorts makes the most sense. Let'srun (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a nomination that merely expired constitutes an appointment controversy, which generally arises where there is some objection to the appointment, or some procedural interference with an unobjectionable appointment. Perhaps a rescoping of those articles can accommodate this information, however. BD2412 T 17:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the paragraph about Woll Jr. on that article though, it appears that there is more to the story than what is noted here. There was objection from the 2 New York senators. Let'srun (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to BD2412's proposed article. Independently of BLP1E, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are not satisfied by the available sources, including those in the article as well as those I could find in my own searches. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:BD2412, has that possible Merge target article been created?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, I started to create a merge article, but then noticed that these subjects are already sufficiently covered in Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies, so I have been redirecting the titles to the appropriate sections of that article. BD2412 T 17:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, then where would you suggest this be redirected to? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and not merge for WP:BLP1E and failing WP:GNG. Woll's nomination failed due to what I read as routine political opposition, rather than a "controversy". So I'm not sure Woll would even qualify for redirect to the judicial nomination controversy article. Longhornsg (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a criterion for inclusion in other articles, so BLP1E and GNG don‘t apply in this way; the subject doesn‘t need to fulfill notability guidelines to be included in a broader article. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 07:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no merge When such an article is created, if the creating editor wishes to also create a redirect from David C. Woll Jr., they should feel free to do so. Right now, delete is the appropriate action, due to failing WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King Conqueror

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough for this article to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Miss Alabama. Star Mississippi 14:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Champion

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that falls into the category of WP:BLP1E, with only routine coverage to supplement. Let'srun (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Alabama. Let'srun (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She also competed at Miss America 2014 and won the "Non-finalist Talent Award", so she's known for more than one thing. She also acted in a play - https://www.al.com/entertainment/2015/07/former_miss_alabama_chandler_c.html and performed in various concerts in Alabama - https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/189288493/?terms="chandler champion"&match=1 and seems to be a local Alabama celeb. I don't see any issue with keeping her page. KatoKungLee (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Isn't the award she won part of the Miss America competition? SoniaSotomayorFan (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SoniaSotomayorFan - Winning Miss Alabama qualifies you for Miss America. She won a non-finalist talent award at Miss America. Not everyone competing at Miss America gets that award.KatoKungLee (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attn: KatoKungLee. Consider merging to Miss Alabama. --Bejnar (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss Alabama. She really is WP:BLP1E, as Miss Alabama is run by the Miss America organization, and the NFT award above is not a notable award. --Bejnar (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Baker Tilly International. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Tilly US, LLP

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

Tagged for notability since 2009. Largely PR sources found; what's used in the article is primary. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: even I've heard of "Virchow Krause", their old name. High profile accounting company. Almost $1 billion in revenues. Do we want a standalone article now or merge into their new parent?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Baker_Tilly_International Graywalls (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Baker_Tilly_International, the corporate parent.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. When policy changes it can be hard to find a clear consensus because it takes a while for wide acceptance of the new standards to bed in and its not helped by votes that assert a gng pass but don’t provide context of which sources pass and why. Here we have the benefitnof a detailed source analysis but its in the delete side and has not been refuted. The evidence is that the gng is not met so that gives us the outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitrijs Zelenkovs

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

Non-notable footballer. As NFOOTY no longer applies, we need to see GNG from the sources, but they don't even come close to this, and BEFORE finds nothing beyond the usual stats and capsule profiles. Was draftified earlier, but the creator didn't like that, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:SPORTCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Latvia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it looks like the article creator has created several similar stubs in the last week for Latvian footballers, many of which will require forensic examination too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SPORTBASIC Karnataka (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Enough in Latvian language sources to pass WP:BASIC in my opinion. Have you even looked at lv:Dmitrijs Zelenkovs? or ru:Зеленков, Дмитрий? Govvy (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be enough sources directly on him overall so at least barely passes WP:GNG (haven't searched in Latvian) and RFS are currently playing in Europe so it's not as if he's random. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SF. Giant Snowman 19:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the Latvian sources, the first is straight from his football club N; the second is a transactional piece with a bit more info than that provided in the referenced press release, but still hardly non-routine SIGCOV N; the third is another piece from his club N. Govvy SportingFlyer Are there other Latvian language sources y'all are counting? Because a single transfer announcement is most certainly not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: There are weak hits here and there all over the place from a some obscure ones from Italy back to Latvia, one example, you can goto a news service like diena.lv and pick up some hits. la.lv have some weak hits, but not very good ones. ir.lv doesn't do sports as far as I am aware. There is a difference between the local newspapers in per regions in Latvia to the national ones. Up to you how you want to vote. But from what I've seen online, it's a weak keep for me, and the reason why I side with Keep is partly what SportingFlyer said. It's rare for a Latvian player to go abroad for football and Zelenkovs played in Italy, although in a youth setup. And now he is called up to their international team. You're just seeing the black and white and not the bigger picture from my point of view. Govvy (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second source is fine. The third source is from the Latvian federation, not a club. There are other additional sources out there as well - it's not as if this is the entirety of the information. SportingFlyer T·C 10:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Latvian federation is still a governing sports organization and so does not count as independent. JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok I thought you guys were just referring to the sources on the Latvian wiki. I don't really see why it matters where he's from if he doesn't receive SIGCOV...? The diena.lv hits all just seem like routine match reports. My own searches in Cyrillic didn't return much at all, and I only got transfer announcements and match recaps from 46.lv and Sportazinas. JoelleJay (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the second ref in the page has enough non-routine information to be considered more than a routine "transactional announcement" and is WP:GNG-passing. However that alone is not enough as all of the other references are non-independent (produced by his team or league). Frank Anchor 16:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other decent references not currently in the article, though. SportingFlyer T·C 11:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per provided sources, this just meets the GNG. User:Let'srun 23:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Cleakry significant figure in Latvian football with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as the sources are either not independent (quotes from the subject, club press releases - even when hosted by a local newspaper, Latvia federation announcements) or not in-depth (a short blurb about his 2015 youth football award). Everything else is routine stuff like match reports or notes about his signing for RFS (which is all derivative of the non-independent club's press release). I don't understand what other editors are seeing that suggests anything approaching SIGCOV exists. Jogurney (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify if possible - not notable right now, but more sources may come out after potential Latvia debut. Otherwise, delete. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Oasis (British TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV, nothing found in a BEFORE to establish notability which is has been tagged for since 2013.

PROD removed with "John Simm's first series is always going to be notable. BEFORE failure", but is that enough for this article to be kept? If that what makes it notable, why wasn't the tag removed at the same time the PROD was? DonaldD23 talk to me 15:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aired nationally. No BEFORE articulated, so that nom has not overcome the presumption of notability for a nationally aired program, albeit a short-lived one. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Tears of a rodeo clown". Chelsea News. 1992-12-30. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Playing a loveable down-and-out who becomes a kind of hero to local children he meets in an inner city wilderness was a nice change for Peter McNamara – he's usually a tough guy or a villain. ... The only problem with his new role is that he had to shoot several scenes with horses and as an asthma sufferer he is allergic to them. ... Oasis, the new 10-part children's series made by Carlton, is written by Barry Purchase, who wrote Tucker's Luck and much of Grange Hill. McNamara stars as a rodeo clown who resigns in protest against cruelty and later rescues some of the animals with the idea of setting up a city farm."
2. Moore, Pat (1993-01-21). "Television Review". The Stage. ProQuest 962551402. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Appealing to the even younger was Oasis (ITV, 4.40) a ten-parter about a piece of wasteland in South London which the kids call The Jungle and which has been illegally fenced off by the council until the arrival of Posh Robert (John Simms) a well-educated drop-out. He and drifter Jimmy (Peter McNamara) team up to fight off the council and local villain, Bob Bulger (Bill Stewart) a Faginesque-character who recruits local kids to carry out petty crimes. I hope this series will be popular with children because the plot seems plausible and city-kids can at least identify with the problem of having nowhere safe to play. Some of the older cast members do seem to be overacting, however, a fault I've noticed before in children's productions. Kids are far quicker at detecting a baddie or the untrustworthy than many adults, so snarling a lot just looks daft."
3. "Fighting to save their jungle from concrete". Evening Standard. 1992-10-02. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "This time the fighters are the capital's youngsters and their struggle is the subject of Oasis, the first major children's television series to be shown by Carlton Television which takes over the London weekday franchise from Thames in January. The oasis is a patch of waste-land which serves as a playground for the children from the rundown estates that surround it but is under threat from office-building developers. ... John Simms co-stars as a disaffected public-school boy escaping from his middle-class background."
4. "Pick of today's viewing". Heartland Evening News. 1994-05-20. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "ITV: Oasis, 4.40pm. The ten-part drama series for children set in and around a South London wasteland site continues. The site is known to local children as 'the jungle' and they want to keep it for themselves with the help of drifter Jimmy, despite the local council's determination to get the children out and fence it up. The kids' lives are complicated by the activities of a local young hoodlum called Bulger and his mob."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Drummond, Maggie (1993-01-08). "Teenagers turn to the sitcoms". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "There is a sad lack of useful factual programmes for teenagers; even worse is the lack of drama redeemed only by the new 10-parter Oasis (Carlton) set in a south London wasteland inhabited by youngsters who behave like mini Arthur Daleys."
  2. "In Production". The Stage and Television Today. No. 5810. 1992-08-20. p. 37. ProQuest 962541969.
    The article notes: "OASIS-Carlton Television ten-part children's drama serial, on location in South-East London. Production company: Zenith North. Cast includes: Peter McNamara, Samantha Hammond, Clare Mathews, John Simm, Kelly Frost, George Russo, Curt Clement-Fletcher, May Promjiem, Daniel John, Daniel Brown, Dean Gaffney, Lily Souza, Anthony Lee. Writer: Barry Purchese. Producer: John Price. Directors: Chris Clough, Joanna Hogg."
  3. Wittstock, Melinda (1992-12-01). "New ITV station uses sex to woo audiences; Carlton Television". The Times. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14 – via Gale.
    The article notes: "Carlton has produced four peak viewing time dramas. ... Oasis, a ground-breaking children's drama, follows inner-city youngsters who try to convert wasteland into a farm."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Oasis to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN based on citations identified by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Earl of Westmeath. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Anthony Nugent, 13th Earl of Westmeath

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

Anglo-Irish nobleman with no claim to notability, fails WP:GNG. Tynagh Millennium Review seems to be a tertiary compendium of church records, and Debrett's Peerage is a tertiary source specialized in peerage, and thepeerage.com is a self-published peerage website, so neither can be used to satisfy the GNG, which relies on independent, reliable, in-depth secondary sources. In its current state, this article also violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Potential redirect target: Earl of Westmeath. Pilaz (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Pilaz (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Westmeath. As noted in WP:PEERAGE#Notability, people are not automatically notable by virtue of holding a hereditary title. If a subject's claim to notability arises, as it seems to here, *entirely* from the title they hold, then cover them in the article on the title. Otherwise it's a form of WP:BIO1E (where the "one event", for which the person is notable, is their birth; Or perhaps death of a parent). Otherwise, being a captain in the Royal Artillery and a schoolmaster, and trivial mentions in short directory-style entries in exhaustive peerage sources, do not add up to notability. My own WP:BEFORE search hasn't returned any significant coverage. Guliolopez (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Westmeath per talk:Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Credit Professional

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

A certification program for finance, locally based on Canada, probably a case of advertisment WP:PROMO without any significant notability. Chiserc (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Canada. Chiserc (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article talks about a Rwandan something or other, appears to have been vandalized. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I restored the original content of the page. I'm assuming someone vandalised it. Tintinthereporter226 (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy 411

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

Non-notable television and radio show that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Baseball. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did find a brief ESPN blog article regarding this, ^[1] , but I don't believe that would constitute enough for significant coverage. I also found this article ^[2], but that does not look either reliable and is more about an earthquake at the time rather than the TV show itself. Even if those two were good enough, I could not find anything more than that and it's not three sources.

Tintinthereporter226 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Players under siege for fantasy 411". ESPN.com. 2008-08-22. Retrieved 2023-08-09.
^ "Earthquake shocks TV sports show hosts - 9News". www.9news.com.au. 2011-08-27. Retrieved 2023-08-09.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 19:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Mason

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

No significant achievement in multiple, verifiable and reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. The article relies mainly on primary sources, some local news, and mentions on her books for beauty and make-up. Making an online research, nothing more has been found. There is only a mention on New York Times for her shop from 2008, nothing more than that. Chiserc (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and United Kingdom. Chiserc (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Sunderland Echo source likely counts towards establishing notability, but I don't think this is sufficient to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The general consensus is that this article not only currently fails NPOV (which is not a valid reason for deletion), but that the nature of the subject makes that problem fundamentally unfixable (which is). The only "keep" argument does nothing to refute this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic diaspora

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

WP:OR WP:UNSOURCED WP:CROSSCAT of language family (Slavic languages) and geography (countries where the majority of the population is a native speaker of a language which belongs to the Slavic langue family). These are then linked to an arbitrary group of nationality-based diaspora articles, ethnicity-based diaspora articles, and diaspora articles which are a mix of nationality and ethnicity. For the sake of argument, I will assume that "ethnic Belarusian" etc. means "a native speaker of Belarusian", and therefore a native speaker of a Slavic language. Under that interpretation, all nationality-based articles shouldn't be in this DP, because that includes all people with Belarusian nationality, regardless of what their native language is. E.g. Lithuanians in Belarus who move to, say, Karakalpakstan, are part of the nationality-based "Belarusian diaspora", but not the ethnicity-based "Belarusian diaspora". But even if we purge it all and only keep the purely ethnicity-based diaspora articles, there is a long series of precedents which have confirmed that language family is a WP:NONDEFINING WP:CROSSCAT.

Follow-up to long series of precedents, including but not limited to the deletion (or merging/renaming) of:

Some related ongoing discussions:

Category:Serb diaspora (nominated for merging)
Category:Slavic-American society (nominated for upmerging)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic cultures (nominated for deletion)

Examination whether each article is nationality-based, ethnicity-based, or a mix

Slavic diaspora may refer to any of the following diasporas of Slavs:

Belarusian diaspora: The Belarusian diaspora refers to emigrants from the territory of Belarus as well as to their descendants.
- Conclusion: Nationality-based.
Bosnian diaspora: The Bosnian diaspora consists of Bosnian emigrants of all ethnicities and their descendants. Bosnians clarifies: As a common demonym, the term Bosnians refers to all inhabitants/citizens of the country, regardless of any ethnic, cultural or religious affiliation.
- Conclusion: Nationality-based.
Bosniak diaspora: redirects to Bosniaks, which are a South Slavic ethnic group
- Conclusion: Ethnicity-based.
Bulgarian diaspora: Map of the Bulgarian diaspora in the world (includes people with Bulgarian ancestry or citizenship).
- Conclusion: Both, so it includes non-ethnic Bulgarians.
Croatian diaspora: The Croatian diaspora (...) consists of communities of ethnic Croats and/or Croatian citizens living outside Croatia.
- Conclusion: Both, so it includes non-ethnic Croats.
Czech diaspora The Czech diaspora refers to both historical and present emigration from the Czech Republic, as well as from the former Czechoslovakia and the Czech lands (including Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia).
- Conclusion: Nationality-based.
Macedonian diaspora: Macedonian diaspora in the world (includes people with Macedonian ancestry or citizenship).
- Conclusion: Both, so it includes non-ethnic Macedonians.
Polish diaspora: The Polish diaspora comprises Poles and people of Polish heritage or origin who live outside Poland.
- Conclusion: Both, so it includes non-ethnic Poles.
Russian diaspora: The Russian diaspora is the global community of ethnic Russians.
- Conclusion: Ethnicity-based.
Serbian diaspora: Serbian diaspora refers to Serbian emigrant communities in the diaspora. The existence of a numerous diaspora of Serbian nationals is mainly a consequence of either economic or political (coercion or expulsion) reasons.
- Conclusion: Nationality-based.
Serb diaspora Serb diaspora (Serbian: Српска дијаспора/Srpska dijaspora) refers to the diaspora communities of ethnic Serbs. It is not to be confused with the Serbian diaspora, which refers to migrants, regardless of ethnicity, from Serbia.
- Conclusion: Ethnicity-based.
Ukrainian diaspora The Ukrainian diaspora comprises Ukrainians and their descendants who live outside Ukraine around the world, especially those who maintain some kind of connection to the land of their ancestors and maintain their feeling of Ukrainian national identity within their own local community. A bit unclear, mixed, but mostly ethnicity-based. On the other hand, Ukrainian diaspora#Spain notes: According to official Spanish statistics, there are 112,728 Ukrainians in Spain as of late 2019, being the 11th biggest foreign nationality found in Spain. So this is about nationality again. Meanwhile, the article contains the phrase "ethnicity" 6 times and "nationality" 5 times, both mostly in the references.
- Conclusion: So this is another mix of ethnicity-based and nationality-based diaspora.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see how one can infer it from the link to the article Ukrainians, but the quoted lead text from Ukrainian diaspora actually does not mention ethnicity at all. It merely says “Ukrainians”, a term that my dictionary doesn’t define by ethnicity either: “a native or inhabitant of Ukraine, or a person of Ukrainian descent.” —Michael Z. 14:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Language, Ethnic groups, and Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, North Macedonia, Poland, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the arguments above all Slavs except some Poles or Belarusians are technically 'Slavic diaspora' as they are 'scattered across regions which are separate from [their] geographic place of origin'. --Nk (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not opposing, but the rationale is not sound, because it relies on artificially narrow definitions based on ethnicity, a concept introduced by the nomination and not inherently defining of the subjects or the article.

For example, my dictionary says diaspora is the dispersion of a people from their homeland, and does not restrict it applying to an ethnicity. Similarly, for example, Ukrainian diaspora refers to “Ukrainians and their descendants,” further explaining that that is “those who maintain some kind of connection to the land of their ancestors and maintain their feeling of Ukrainian national identity within their own local community.” In fact, many national communities are not solely or even primarily based on ethnicity. The definition above is a very good one, because it seems to remain consistently applicable during a period when many sources have stated that Ukraine has significantly and rapidly changed from a nation based on ethnic nationalism to a more unified civic one that includes a number of ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious groups (including Ukrainian and Russian speakers, Crimean Tatars, Jews, &c).

I thought it worth discussing because many Wikipedia discussions focus unreasonable on unduly atomizing ethnicity and nationality and therefore fail to reflect RS’s on related subjects.

This article is not a disambiguation page as it purports to be, because there is no clash of article titles. It is more like a category listing. Diasporas appear to be categorized geographically, as in Category:European diasporas, but there’s no reason they couldn’t also be categorized by language groups, as this is a common way to characterize and group peoples, countries, and states. —Michael Z. 14:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all those observations, actually. Ukrainians can be defined in an ethnic and in a civic way, and each individual may have a different emphasis; it depends on who you ask. But I think the civic approach is most applicable in the 21st century, as there is a strong and widespread sense of civic virtue, and inclusion of diversity (as mentioned Ukrainian and Russian speakers, Crimean Tatars, Jews, &c which is all true), in Ukrainian society and those who fled or migrated abroad. Contemporary Ukrainian culture is not so much based on ethnocentric ideas such as the Ukrainian language, let alone on being "Slavic" (or being "Eastern Slavic" or "Eastern Orthodox" or clinging to Cyrillic etc. as an unchanging undeniable part of one's identity, as it is in Bulgaria, for example), for that matter), as it is about striving to be a sovereign society that chooses its own way, and develop in its own manner within the wider European and global context. Therefore, reductionist linguistic groupings of the Ukrainians and their diaspora as "Slavic" do not really do justice to the complex and nuanced situation as it can be objectively observed, nor to the way it is subjectively experienced and expressed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All true. But Slavic, as in Slavic peoples, refers to a particular set of national groups. There’s no reason to define the category narrowly as “Slavic-language-speaking diaspora,” which would be a less likely interpretation to me. My dictionary has a main definition, meaning of or relating to the language family branch in C&EE, and a subsense, meaning relating to or denoting the peoples who speak a Slavic language. It is quite normal to interpret Slavic as meaning how it’s intended in this article title.

[Still not arguing to keep, just talking about the semantics.] —Michael Z. 15:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think the confusion might come from how you use the term "national groups" (in an anthropolical / sociological sense?) while I use the term "nationality" in a legal sense.

Let me try to illustrate this with an example. (I hope this will be realistic, and not insensitive, because this is stuff that has been happening, and people should be aware). Suppose that a Crimean Tatar woman with Ukrainian nationality, born and raised in Crimea, with Crimean Tatar as her first language, Russian as her second, Ukrainian as her third, gets a job in Simferopol (mostly speaking Russian at work and in society), but has to flee to Kyiv in March 2014 when she rebuilds her life (e.g. she gets a new job, wherein Ukrainian becomes increasingly important for communication at work and in society), and then has to flee to Poland in February 2022, where she has to start all over again in Warsaw, hoping to return to Kyiv (and if possible Crimea) some day in the future.

Now, if we were to define "Ukrainian" very narrowly in ethnolinguistic terms, she would not be counted as part of the "Ukrainian diaspora", and thus the "Slavic diasporas", just because Ukrainian is not her first language (nor is Russian, for that matter). However, if we define "Ukrainian" in broad, civic, nationality-based terms, then of course she is a Ukrainian. Whether her first language is part of this or that language family doesn't really matter; it has no bearing on her career (WP:OCEGRS). Having Ukrainian nationality, however, has been WP:DEFINING for her whole life (probably more than Crimean Tatar as her first language, let alone Russian as second and Ukrainian as third). I don't know if we should consider this hypothetical woman part of "Ukrainians" as a "national group" the way you are describing it, but I would regard her as neither an "ethnic Ukrainian" nor as a "Slavic" person, but she certainly is a Ukrainian national, part of the Ukrainian diaspora in Poland. Good day, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no good reason to delete, nor for the deletions of the other categories and articles, what a terrible trend.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially saying you do not accept community consensus, and that core Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR WP:UNSOURCED WP:CROSSCAT are "no good reasons", while not citing any policy or guideline in favour of a keep. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the closing admin should be aware this is a dab page and basically its a NPOV slav nationalist thing claiming a single racial identity for a set of nationality based articles where the affected peoples reflect the same cross sections of ethnicities and language groups found across the FSU. As a dab this in inherently NPOV and must be removed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nirahua Entertainment

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

No reliable sourcing found, mostly a list of non-notable artists. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and India. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think we can safely disregard Times of India as a source for notability purposes per WP:TOI. However, even if we include it, I'm not seeing the significant coverage required for WP:GNG. Considering also that WP:NCORP applies, which establishes a higher standard of source independence, I'm not seeing the coverage needed to establish notability. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psake

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Language~~ and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from language delsort list 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find primary sources describing the application, and user-generated content (e.g. GitHub). Doesn't seem to have been discussed in secondary sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticity product

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Seems to have been a neologism. Other than the one repeated source, the others don't seem to use the term, though they use the concept. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Biology. UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question Has anyone been able to access and check Reference 1? If the term is used significantly in that book then it may be a notable concept. But I agree with nom that the article seems to have a lot of SYNTH, bringing together selected examples that never actually talk about the concept. If it is kept, the article needs a major rewrite. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC) Keep I managed to find a couple of references to the concept: [13][14][15]. However, the term doesn't seem to be very widely used, and a search of "plasticity product" mostly gets you articles on geotechnical and soil science, where it of course has a different meaning. So maybe a disambiguation page or a change of title to "plasticity product (neurobiology)", or something like that, would be a good idea. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the first two papers located by WeirdNAnnoyed are authored by the coiner of the term, and the last is a single mention rather than an explanation of the term. Would change my mind if "plasticity product" was discussed at some length in a secondary source like a review article or a textbook. Otherwise, as the nomination points out, it looks like a non-notable WP:NEO. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 02:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a coinage that has had any substantial uptake. XOR'easter (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a protologism, meaning it isn't even eligible for transwiki to Wiktionary. Google ngram viewer shows 0 hits; pubmed shows no instances of "plasticity product". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Perez (actor)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No significant roles. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kid in China Beach isn't notable, rest of the roles are trivial. There is a comic book artist with his name that recently passed away. Non-notable actor here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to D.C. United#Club culture. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Norte

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

Tagged for notability since 2010 and shows no indication of it. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - merge to D.C. United#Club culture. Govvy (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Govvy. Giant Snowman 21:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M/R to D.C._United#Club_culture as discussed above. Not independently notable. Star Mississippi 00:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Furong

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

Severe lack of high-quality and reliable sources, badly-written and non-neutral article. Shi has no evidence of notability, other than being a blogger. "Future" section still contains information from 2008. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 13:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and China. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 13:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has profiles in Popular Culture in Asia: Memory, City, Celebrity (ISBN 9781137270207) (pg. 171–173), Celebrity in China (ISBN 9789622090873) (Chapter 11 – China’s internet celebrity: Furong Jiejie), and this CNN article. Easily meets notability. (Also, I found more Google Books results when looking for "Furong Jiejie" if that helps.) Why? I Ask (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sourcing given above, but wow does this need a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the sources listed by Why? I Ask. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. WP:NOTNEWS. ^Complex/_Rational 15:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seema Haider case

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

Wikipedia is not a news website. The subject does not demonstrate scope for any lasting significance much beyond a set of current news headlines. News headlines fade just as fast as they are made. This phenomenon is not new; it is not the first time there's been an illegal border crossing from India to Pakistan or Pakistan to India, and it won't be the last. Mar4d (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per NOM. --SM7^--talk-- 16:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be delete, what is the new this? J. Ansari Talk 17:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful'...per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not new or the first time that a woman has crossed the Pakistan border to enter India through illegal ways. I don't believe this article demonstrates any notability, and Wikipedia is not a news website.Kind regards --Âvîrâm7^(talk) 02:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 03:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contemporary fantasy

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page fails WP:GNG. There are plenty of hits on Google/Google Scholar/JSTOR/Wikipedia Library, but most are unreliable or are an adjective modifying a noun. They do not show that "Contemporary fantasy" has a distinct identity. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy entry ([16]) is interesting but not a clear subgenre:

"By definition, a Contemporary Fantasy sets the mundanity of the present day in clear opposition to the fantasy premise. A Contemporary Fantasy is thus a Crosshatch […] or a Portal fantasy […] or a Gnostic Fantasy […] or a Fantasy of History […] or an Instauration Fantasy […] – or indeed any combination of these. [...] Many texts can be described simultaneously as Contemporary Fantasy and as Urban Fantasy."

Moreover, I don’t think it can pass GNG. If we use the (unsourced) definition on the page, it's meaningless; it says nothing about the text, only when it was written. What is the common ground between "The Bottle Imp", The Borrowers, The Garden of Sinners, and Harry Potter? It’s not a useful term.

People searching for "contemporary fantasy" are probably looking for fantasy stories set in the modern world, and Urban fantasy is the most common phrase for this per Google Ngrams [17], although Low fantasy has a slightly higher number of pageviews. So I think a redirect to Urban fantasy would be best. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. There is clearly consensus to keep it, and other editors found sources that I couldn't. Thanks for everyone's help. I'll close the discussion now. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs much more sourcing, and maybe a check if there is original research or not. But these are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. "It’s not a useful term" is a personal opinion which has no bearing if an article should be deleted. Also, it seems that John Clute and Brian Stableford disagree. I am strongly convinced that the article does NOT fail WP:GNG, because WP:GNG depends on the existence of sources, and both The Encyclopedia of Fantasy and The A to Z of Fantasy Literature have an entry on the subject. If these encyclopedias have an entry, so should Wikipedia as a general and specialized encyclopedia. In addition, there are many more secondary sources discussing the term, so it's certainly notable. The fact that it is a broad topic, which encompasses a number of sub-genres, does not make it any less encyclopedic. Neither does the fact that there is some overlap with Urban fantasy and Low fantasy. These are not synonyms. E.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is contemporary urban fantasy, while Shadowrun and the Discworld City Watch novels have been considered urban fantasy but are not contemporary fantasy. Also the first sentence as a definition is NOT meaningless. E.g. it allows us to say that Harry Potter is contemporary fantasy and The Lord of the Rings isn't, and this is independent of when they were written. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Beyond the above sourcing, here's a source that contrasts the genre of contemporary fantasy with magical realism [18]. Here's a source explaining the difference and overlap with urban fantasy and more [19]

Cleanup of the article, such as deciding whether the article should only be about a genre or if it should be a broad concept article can be handled on the article talk page. Both articles would be valid, and it may be that this discussion ultimately leads to two such articles, or perhaps a BCA can have a substantial section for the genre. A merge would not be beneficial. —siro χ o 19:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these two sources to the article. —siro χ o 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I think I'm up to 5 sources backing the general definition presented in the article, plus a few more related ones. I also added a talk page note about an overlapping but slightly different definition I've started running into, that will likely be worth giving DUE weight in the article. I won't make further updates regarding sourcing in this AFD, but may continue to improve the article. —siro χ o 23:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above points, especially that both The Encyclopedia of Fantasy and The A to Z of Fantasy Literature have entries on this topic.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and thank the op for the courtesy ping). I think that if the experts at EoF think this merits a separate entry from urban fantasy,and if itis also covered in The A to Z of Fantasy Literature (for two paragraphs in a stand-alone entry, so I think SIGCOV is met), this meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Semi-related but editors interested in this AfD may also want to comment on recently proposed merger and a redirect or merger proposal: Talk:Sword_and_sorcery#Merge_proposal and Talk:Sword_and_planet#Proposed_redirect_to_planetary_romance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability standards DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 15:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GoodNotes

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

Routine coverage. Insufficient references to establish notability or pass WP:NSOFT. I have tried to expand a bit more with refs since I nominated just in case others disagree. Uhooep (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources available online appear to be mostly reviews, failing WP:GNG. NotAGenious (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having made a single edit to this page (Make of that what you will), I'm of the opinion that it also probably wouldn't pass NSOFT. Most of the sources I've seen are either reviews or are copies/rewordings of press releases. If there are suitable sources which describe its impact on the software world then it would be worth keeping, but I haven't seen any yet. Apparently their addition of Machine-Learning tools is a 'world first' (says their press release) which may eventually confer notability, but that would be WP:CRYSTAL. If it does come into notability in the future the article could easily be rewritten, since it's pretty much still a stub with promotional history at this point. PenguinPhone (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Cheskin

AfDs for this article:

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

Mr Cheskin might be notable enough for an article, but this version is atrocious. It's so unencyclopaedic that it's not a useful starting point. Let's TNT it. —S Marshall T/C 09:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 09:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The material is sourced to the book listed as a reference. A biography of someone who died in 1981 is not an advertisement for the company that he founded. This is someone historically important, as will be clear from a search on Google Books and Google News archive. Bias is best resolved through editing, not deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a lot of work, including more citations, but the subject is clearly notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and WP:POTENTIAL. --(Roundish ⋆t) 15:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a noted marketing innovator (so that's why margarine is yellow). I found the page not badly written and informative. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ADM-144

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

No coverage except brief entry on designation-systems.net (here), that basically says that nothing is known about this missile project and that it was cancelled before designation allocation. To put it simply: no coverage 'cause there's nothing to cover. a!rado는 더미입니다 (C✙T) 08:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. a!rado는 더미입니다 (C✙T) 08:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to see here. Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to pass WP:GNG NotAGenious (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even the one source says "No details whatsoever are available", and searching for results I come up with nothing related to it. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Zarrabi

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

another non-notable Iranian pilot who fails WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN - fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some hits in gscholar for an unrelated person, nothing found for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Meet WP:GNG. leader at Operation Kaman 99.--Patricia (Talk) 14:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of independent notability. Intothat darkness 16:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

A fictional concept from the Buffyverse, where this could be merged. No reception, analysis, even creation/development, just 100% plot summary with footnotes to primary sources (TV episodes, mostly). My BEFORE is not showing anything helpful, although as always, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Said BEFORE is difficult due to generic term here, particularly in the context of the show's name - maybe someone familiar with scholarly research into this show will be able to cobble up some analysis to save this? Otherwise, as I said above, we can just redirect it (perhaps merge a few tidbits?) per ATD/SOFTDELETE to Buffyverse. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon, p. 3, has a bit of commentary on the role of Slayer, and p. 12-16 has a lot of semantics on the term Slayer/slayer. Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy has discussions of the Slayer concept distributed: P. 38 compares it to a superhero's secret identity, the chapter starting at p. 103 compares the duties of the Slayer to those of the Philosopher, p. 192 discusses the relationship between the Slayer figure and society. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buffyverse. As Daranios put forth, the concept may be notable, but the article reached the WP:TNT threshold due to its WP:ALLPLOT, in-universe content. I also think that even if notable, it would fail WP:OVERLAP with the Buffyverse. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know TNT says nothing about notable articles which suck, right? Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two more sources are the PhD theses "A Double-Edged Sword: Feminist Reclamation in Neomedieval Fantasy" and "Telling girlhood: Girls' studies, reparative trauma and 20th century US popular culture", which, among other things, analyse the Slayer as a feminist concept, and the Slayers' development through eras of feminism, respectively. Funnily enough, "A Double-Edged Sword" has detailed analysis of the Slayer's weapons' symbolism, which I would not have expect to be a section reflected in scholarly work. Now clearly this article has the problem of missing non-plot content and secondary sources. But as the found sources together show, (and there are a number of others, though with probably shorter treatments) the concept is notable. It is not a case for WP:TNT, because that would only apply "if the article's content is useless ... but the title might be useful". This is obviously not the case, as both a part of the plot-summary content and a part of the weapons content can be found again in these secondary sources and would be part of a "good" article on the topic. Daranios (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, with regard to WP:OVERLAP I think if all the relevant analysis from the found sources (and as I said, there are more) would be incorporated into Buffyverse#Slayers together with an balanced amount of plot summary, that would make that section akwardly large as compared to the rest of that article, as described in WP:NOTMERGE #2. And there is simply enough content for a stand-alone article as described in WP:WHYN. Daranios (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an AfD outcome per Daranios's RS findings. No objection to a merger discussion as a discussion, but there are enough RS'es that a merge is not an appropriate AfD-compelled outcome. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buffyverse#Slayer and develop the content from there until it hits WP:SPINOUT territory. The concept should definitively be covered on WP, but there's nothing really salvageable here. A stub-like fresh start as part of the larger universe will help without completely nuking it; the redirect leaves the article history behind for selective culling for interested parties. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG per above sourcing. More SIGCOV of the the idea in these books: [20][21]. Aside: Personally, I find it's easier to fix these articles than to start them fresh. —siro χ o 07:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few sources and a short reception/analysis section to the article. —siro χ o 09:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo Thanks, and I think this will likely be closed as keep. I'll nonetheless choose to dissent and not withdraw this, as I think much of what you've added is not about the concept of "Slayer" but about Buffy, the character, at least as written and quoted in the article right now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I included some coverage about the potentials and the first slayer, there will be more coverage on both of those. Much slayer content will be inherently tied up with the main character. The dichotomy of teenage desires vs slayer responsibilities is a major theme in the show and would belong in both topics. "The slayer" is frequently mentioned in concept distinct from Buffy even when she is the individual in the room, in the show but more importantly in secondary sources. There will definitely be more to add on Faith, Kendra, Fray, Nikki Wood, and likely some I'm forgetting, from those and other secondary sources. —siro χ o 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources provided by multiple editors, this subject meets WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 14:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Black Canary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Canary (Dinah Drake)

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

Plot summary unnecessarily split from Black Canary where I suggest this should be merged as a SOFTDELETE option. As a stand-alone article, this fails WP:GNG. No reception or analysis section, just fictional character biography (including stuff like "Powers and abilities: Dinah Drake also rides a motorcycle." - color me impressed) and a list of media appearances. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. She was to be separated from the other versions of Black Canary just like how other characters who use the same alias have their own separate pages. Plus, @Jhenderson777: created this page to keep the other page from being overcrowded. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? Those arguments may work for fandom (fan wiki), but our articles have to meet GNG and similar criteria. Which sources support stand-alone notability of this character? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Black Canary. I would even support a bold heading in the section. But neither article is long enough or distinct enough to warrant separation. It is just an unneeded split that makes navigation harder for WP readers. If someone has a valid rationale for separate articles, please notify me. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black Canary - Splitting this into three different articles really does not accomplish anything except, as El cid, el campeador mentioned, make it harder to navigate for readers. This is a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation where the context provided by having both main "Black Canary" characters covered on the same page just makes more sense. Rorshacma (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The same topic is being covered in three articles, which makes the topic harder to follow, and unnecessarily complicated. Doesn't have WP:SIGCOV as separate topics. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Mazza

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

This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:ACADEMIC. Previous versions were full of a smattering of somewhat vague uncited claims to notability, as well as cites to promoters, and claims about third parties without good references. I removed the majority of those. This subject's sole named ensemble, even before my WP:BLP edits, has been the percussion quartet Répercussion, itself not apparently notable. There is one interview full of third party claims with Drum!, but I don't think the source is reliable particularly for third party claims, nor the import of what they claim. I left local Montrealer (non-notable publication) coverage in external links, as the source failed to name any author in one piece, and clearly sourced its promotional information from the subject in the other. It also contains advertisements for the subject, indicating the subject is responsible for funding publication or is affiliated closely enough to get free ad space. It's not a particularly WP:RS. JFHJr (㊟) 04:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about his endeavours — but the only article being used as footnoting is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and the two "external links" are both from a minor hyperlocal cityblog in the subject's hometown, which doesn't add up to a GNG-worthy volume of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Reed Richards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brute (Reed Richards)

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

This is just a plot summary that fails WP:GNG, referenced to comic books. At best this could be redirected to Reed Richards and/or Frightful Four, with maybe a few sentences of plot summary merged there (although I'd recommend the first target, the second one has iffy notability as it looks right now anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reed Richards#Counter-Earth per above unless sources are found. BOZ (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Found nothing. Timur9008 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Doesn't meet the WP:SIGCOV but merge is a good WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge targets are proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reed Richards, ~~note that List of Marvel Comics characters: B § Brute links to that page already.~~ I read the link incorrectly sorry. Still, that is probably the better merge. —siro χ o 06:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this discussion as Keep but encouraging those editors who are advocating a Merge to start a discussion about this on the article talk page and that of the target page. Ultimately, a Merge might be the best solution but with several target articles suggested, that option doesn't carry the day in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle, clone)

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

Another nicely written article (Good Article, even) about an anime character with WP:GNG issues, particularly in the WP:SIGCOV realm. Reception contains some non particularly impressive poll rankings ("In March 2010, Syaoran was ranked twenty-third best male anime character of the 2000"), and critical responce based on the mentions in passing in various reviews of the anime or manga. A telling sign of this having major GNG issues is that next to no source mentions this character in its heading, outside three links to Amazon merchandise about Syaoran plushies, keyrings and such (sigh). I'd suggest merger to Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle, original) from which this seems to have been originally split, but sadly, the "original" character faces the same issues. A merger to List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle characters might be a reasonable compromise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Anime and manga. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the "Characterization and themes" [22] "Syaoran" is mentioned in context 13 times. In the "popularity" section, the actor who portrayed the character was nominated for a Seiyu Award. [23], [24]. The reviews are also not taken into account... "Even though Syaoran comes from Cardcaptor Sakura, his personality in Tsubasa couldn’t be more different, and he’s twice as old as his earlier appearance." gives an opinion on the character: [25], [26]. Im sure I can find more, I just skimmed through both the English and Japanese sources used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I honestly forgot this page existed and assumed that it had been merged into the list long ago. Personally, the route I would take would be to merge it with Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle, original) and rename that article to just Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle) instead. giftheck (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Honestly, I find this AFD way too forced. In the reception section, there are comments involving famous singers, talking about the inspiration they got from Syaoran's character to compose theme song while one source is also big guide about the series, citing everything character in regards to what they feel. There is also far more sources already focused on Syaoran like the book "Shōjo Across Media: Exploring "Girl" Practices in Contemporary Japan. Palgrave Macmillan. 2019." and "Anime and Memory: Aesthetic, Cultural and Thematic Perspectives", comparison to the other Syaoran by Comic Book Resources. Seriously, this AFD feels way too forced.Tintor2 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Knowledgekid87 and Tintor2. Yes some of the sources used in the article aren't spectacular but taken as a whole the existing sources demonstrate Syaoran clearly meets the GNG, and that's without digging for additional sources. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Giftheck. I would normally be wary of an AFD for something with this much reception. But in this case, there are three articles about the same character with a lot of redundant sources and reception, verging on a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The best way to cover this would be as a singular article about the character. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments provided by other commenters. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I'm going to properly cast a vote this time, and officially suggest merging this with the other Syaoran article into a single article at Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle). I agree with the above that said 'Keep', but also agree there are a lot of redundant duplicates between the two that would be dealt with if the two were merged together. I do not agree that either article should be merged into List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle characters as this will wind up losing most of the things that would more than work if they were combined into a single, comprehensive article. giftheck (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomaz Ribas

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

Unsourced biography since 2007. Unclear notability as a writer, director, etc. Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Dance, and Portugal. Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The pt.wiki article is sourced and the subject received the Order of Merit. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, seems sources in pt should demonstrate WP:BASIC. It's also likely WP:ANYBIO is met by one of the awards or honors, but I was unable to verify due to language. —siro χ o 08:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raginald Paz

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

Not convinced that there's enough independent coverage to meet WP:NBIO - sources read like advertorials/paid PR.

Previously draftified [27] KH-1 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This contained major enough copyvios for me to G12 it. I think it's borderline, but there are at least major copyvios if the G12 is not accepted. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the article to a stub – the opening sentence looks clean enough – and revision-deleted the copyvio. This AfD can remain open to reach a clear consensus about the subject's notability. ^Complex/_Rational 20:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think he's notable, even in the Philippines. I looked for any news articles about him and there were practically none from any major news outlet. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons presented by Titopao. -Ian Lopez @ 16:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable hits from Google News or Google News Archives --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. but CNMall41 is correct about Forbes, see WP:FORBESCON. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country Financial

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

Non-notable financial company. Forbes sourcing is simply earnings statements (how much money they've made) and listings. All I find is confirmation of existence and donations to charity. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They're on the Fortune 1000 list of the largest companies. They have $3.9 billion in revenues. Unclear how Pokemon characters can be notable and they're not.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need sourcing that talks about them at length. All I could find was confirmation they existed. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We had the Pokémon argument ten years ago and it's time to drop the stick. Notability is based off of WP:V and WP:GNG and this article doesn't reach either standard in its current state. MissingNo. is a featured article. That's how Pokémon characters can be notable and this might not be. casualdejekyll 21:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on the status of this company being in the Fortune 1000, I thought this should pass WP:CORP, but upon a quick glance this [[28]] was the best I could find. There might be enough to pass the notability guidelines, but it may take some time to find usable sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(all links to Proquest)
- GlobalData has multiple SWOT analysis reports on them [29][30]. The methodology on the last page suggests the report does seem to be secondary/independent. This is one SIRS source.
- World Market Intelligence has a "company capsule" report. 10 sparse pages, [31]. I think this is still a SIRS source.
- D&B Hoovers Has a report as well, [32], comparable depth to the above. Not sure on the methodology but given the creator should be reliable on the topic. Should qualify for SIRS.

—siro χ o 06:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing meets WP:ORGCRIT. Financials and SWOT analysis are not in-depth coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, can you tell me what in-depth coverage looks like to you? Also, can you explain the issues with reports that include financial data in addition to narrative data -- I'm not sure I understand why that would disqualify the narrative material also. Financial data is less than half the content of these reports.

As for a SWOT analysis, I would think that would be particularly insightful.

Is this stuff just too detailed and analytical? Too much like a primary source for editors to review?

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed and in-depth are not the same. They are very detailed to be used for content within the Wikipedia page, just not to establish notability. These reports are also put together with information supplied by the company (how else did they get the material?). Not independent enough to meet WP:ORGCRIT. If the company is well-known, why is it not covered in publications outside of these industry reports? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can confirm all 3 of Siroxo's refs are independent. These companies make their money off subscribers, not advertisers or the subject companies. World Market Intelligence has 2 divisions - one publishes ad-supported construction trade publications; the other publishes research reports like this one.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo, A. B. casualdejekyll 13:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. In addition, product reviews https://www.forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/country-financial-home-insurance-review/ and https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/reviews/country-financial/, some news coverage https://www.wsiltv.com/news/illinois/country-financial-donates-1-500-to-support-backstoppers-of-randolph-county/article_52a2c5be-2fd5-11ee-8ce2-13dd120caaa9.html, https://www.beardstownnewspapers.com/country-financial-supports-cass-county-teachers-with-operation-helping-heroes-donation/, https://www.wglt.org/local-news/2023-06-30/state-farm-and-country-financial-get-thousands-of-illinois-claims-from-severe-storms. Seems to have enough referencing to support. - Indefensible (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these meet WP:ORGCRIT. For instance, the Forbes article is part of its Advisor program. Bankrate is a Red Ventures property that has been using AI generated content (being that its sister site (CNET) was just found to be unreliable I would suspect that a similar outcome would be had with Bankrate.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes gave them 3/5 stars, that does not seem like a paid endorsement. The other stuff is speculation at this point. - Indefensible (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in Forbes print and article written by Forbes staff writers are generally reliable for establishing notability per WP:FORBES. This is a review published in their "Advisor" series. While it may not be paid (never said it was by the way), they still earn a commission from the company for referrals through links (see the note at the top of the article). This would never be acceptable to show notability in Wikipedia as the financial interest with Country Financial takes away the independence of the reporting. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging your comment but I am going to just say that I still disagree. Keep in mind this is only supplemental material to add to what Siroxo posted and was agreed upon by 2 other editors (A. B. and casualdejekyll). So far you are the only person in stated agreement with the nomination. This is not meant to be appeal to authority by the way, just summarizing the facts. - Indefensible (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you disagree with WP:FORBES, a guideline that was implemented after strong community consensus? And your argument is an appeal to authority since AfD consensus is not based on vote count. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree that Forbes is generally a reliable source. What I meant is that we can agree to disagree, and maybe someone else will take up the argument with you. - Indefensible (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not actually. The link I sent you shows the Wikipedia community agrees that articles published in Forbes by staff writers are generally reliable. Everything else, including this one is NOT.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still support Country Financial's notability but I think the bankrate.com and Forbes reviews are iffy.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Cash Express

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

Being sued is not terribly notable; rest of what's given is primary sourcing. Non-notable financial services company, outside of a few bumps with the law, nothing extensive found for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There appear to be multiple independent sources beyond the lawsuit, so I'd say this escapes BLP1E. [[33]][[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]][[38]] There does seem to be some PROMO here that will need to be taken out. User:Let'srun 23:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a BLP. Also, those sources are mainly about expansions/acquisitions, which are considered trivial per NCORP.-KH-1 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that not all of those sources wouldn't fulfill the significant coverage requirements on their own, but I think there is enough overall here to keep this one around, and the sources show that there has been continuing coverage about the company. For example, the 1987 merger was delayed and later cancelled [[39]] In addition, here is a article from 1999 discussing the service in a fair amount of detail. [[40]] Let'srun (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the second article, which of those two sentences would you consider commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation? The second? I suppose A consumer cashing three such checks and purchasing six money orders per month (at a cost of 29 cents per $100) would end up spending more than $280 each year at Ace Cash. technically could be considered more than no coverage at all, I guess. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think both qualify, personally. Let'srun (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this the same thing as Ace America's Cash Express? I am having some difficulty searching Ace Cash Express through Google News since a lot of their own websites stuff floods the search result with their self published materials. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per sources presented by Let'srun, which appear to be broadly reflective of the quality available, which is substantially below that we would consider significant for any subject, even ones where when the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; which CORP is not. A sample from other search engines (these are mostly random after excluding press releases, as nothing particularly distinguishes itself as more significant: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]) shows coverage that comfortably falls into the category that is not usually sufficient to establish notability, no matter if we cited all the 267 google indexed online news articles, ~450 books, etc, there is not enough content to extract without resorting to the ACE serves consumers seeking alternatives to traditional banking relationships by providing convenient, immediate access to financial services type of PR fluff we get from uncritically copying from primary sources. Which, incidentally, is enough to delete under WP:DELREASON #4 or #14, even if not necessarily #1, entirely ignoring the matter of #8 or #7. Going back to the sources again: There is zero encyclopedic content we can extract from articles that merely mention the name of the subject, or that it charges (a quantity!) of money in exchange for services, or "it got robbed". A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant. While there is a credible claim of significance, it fails N by a wide, wide margin. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(though, as another aside, there is an AI generated article [47] on the second page of google results, which still feels amusingly novel to me even if it's not very useful) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A completely non-notable payday loan placed coached in a whole lot of flowery words to deny that they even do payday loans (even though their website is all about it). Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the article is negative; It is proved in the above discussion. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 01:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I'm unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 13:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Eric Sprott. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sprott Molybdenum Participation Corporation

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

Non-notable Canadian financial enterprise. Existed for less than a decade, sourcing is largely primary or confirmation of business activities. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eric Sprott. Suitskvarts (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above as WP:ATD-M. No SIRS coverage. —siro χ o 07:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above as per ATD, fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing 16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TechCast Project

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

Fails WP:GNG. The media coverage alluded to in text, as far as I can tell (namely in the Futurist) is not independent as it is by the founder. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 21:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 21:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTPROMO, TNT at best, but the BEFORE is not promising for NCORP —siro χ o 07:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google Scholar indicates several dozen papers discussing TechCast findings.[48] ProQuest: [49] Washington Post article: [50]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 09:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Each of the articles listed in Google Scholar is written by Halal, who founded/runs the project, as is the WaPo article. This likewise seems the case with ProQuest, ignoring what appears to be some sort of technical training thign also called "TechCast" that also appears in those results. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 13:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is a lack of independent secondary coverage for this topic, so far as I can see. User:Let'srun 14:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. A rename for this target article can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald G. Russell

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as a former small-town mayor and federal judicial nominee. A possible redirect is Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies, where his WP:BLP1E is listed. Let'srun (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, and Utah. Let'srun (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect as article creator, per nomination. Safiel (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. - Indefensible (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It seems this individual was eventually appointed to a state bench [51]. But that source is not independent and there is virtually no coverage on this state appointment, so ultimately doesn't affect the outcome here. —siro χ o 07:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this really relevant for Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies? I mean, there was no controversy, the nomination just expired. Curbon7 (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Target article should probably be renamed to just "Barack Obama judicial nominees" or something like that. - Indefensible (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably include the word failed in there, but that is a discussion for the article talk page itself. Let'srun (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deunta Williams

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

This article does not meet the criteria of WP:NCOLLATH or the more general notability guidelines. He did not play professionally, did not win and was not nominated for any national awards, did not win or play in any national championships and has received only scant attention in the press. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A search of Newspapers.com turns up more than "scant" attention. E.g., (1) this (part 1/part 2), (2) this (part 1/part 2), (3) this (part 1/part 2), (4) this part 1/part 2), (5) this,and (6) this. Cbl62 (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Denniscabrams: In light of Alvaldi's substantial expansion of the article, and the additional sourcing, would you consider withdrawing this so all can move on to more productive matters? Cbl62 (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A successful college football player who passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage found by Cbl62 which comes from multiple publications from span of a few years. Alvaldi (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, with much thanks to Alvaldi and Cbl62. casualdejekyll 22:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Players under siege for fantasy 411". ESPN.com. 2008-08-22. Retrieved 2023-08-09.

[2] "Earthquake shocks TV sports show hosts - 9News". www.9news.com.au. 2011-08-27. Retrieved 2023-08-09.

[1]

[2]