Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 17	June 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Ruiz (footballer)

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

This footballer played once for the Cayman Islands several years ago. He has also played domestically in the Cayman Islands top flight.

I see nothing that helps this person meet GNG and a search of local news services turned up very little. There are some passing mentions in the Cayman Compass but it's not nearly enough.

PROD was removed without explanation by Ortizesp as part of a mass dePROD. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and United Kingdom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and Costa Rica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found to prove notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. No sources to prove that this person is notable. Not notable football player nothing more on google . DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Survivor: Fiji. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Cole

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

He won Survivor: Fiji, no doubt, and he made activities after that. However, I am concerned that he's notable for only winning that Survivor season, not businesses that he established, endowments he made, appearances in other TV shows, or any other.

Sources verifying (existences of) this person's businesses, including one about his appearance in Shark Tank, seem to be promoting the businesses, which is against WP:NOTPROMO policy and WP:SPIP, but I could be wrong. The sources also briefly mention him only as a founder of one of businesses rather than significantly cover the founder and Survivor winner himself. Unsure whether producers' re-inviting him makes him notable as well; I doubt it.

In summary, violates WP:BLP1E, and should be redirected to Survivor: Fiji. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Television, and Kansas. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's expanded comment - Almost forgot: being the first African-American male to win Survivor may not be sufficient to save this article (from being redirected, deleted, or whichever else) after all. George Ho (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator brought good point in expanded comm. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It contains material that is written like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a promo site too. CastJared (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Analogical models. ✗plicit 23:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structural analog (electronic)

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

Merge into Analogical models, not enough material to justify its own page, when there are many other related pages. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Analogical models, It looks like content forked out, which is redundant. CastJared (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Mathematics. Skynxnex (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While mergers can be agreed at AfD as an alternative to deletion, I think it would be preferable if the dedicated process were used in those cases where even the nominator does not argue for the content to be deleted (cf. this essay). Felix QW (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. The WP:COMMONNAME for the electronics concept the article describes is equivalent circuit. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Weicker

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film director. Accepted by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic. US-Verified (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the second nomination and it runs the risk of being as unaffected as the first, due to a lack of participation. Well, as far as I understand the situation, his brother is notable and he is not. The German WP page about him has been removed. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This is not notable, and this is the second nomination. CastJared (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found for this individual, there seems to be lots of coverage in the sportosworld world for a person with a similar name, nothing about a film person. Gsearch in .de sites goes straight to his personal website, then various promo sites, then peters off... The awards section lists more than a dozen; if the person was this this renown, I'd expect to find coverage of them all over the place; there just isn't any. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Rights holder" appears to mean "owns the copyright", which isn't terribly notable, you can assign it to anyone with the right legal setup. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marat Kenzhebulatov

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

Refs are all statistics, doesn't meet notability for an athlete or SIGCOV. He's also a 'world champion' in the master division of a tournament that appears to have given out gold medals to dozens of entrants. Nswix (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Kazakhstan. Nswix (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not enough for BJJ notability as an athlete or a coach. As an athlete he would need to have medalled at adult black belt level (not Masters) at an elite international competition (IBJJF Mundials, Euros, Pans or Brasileiros) none are listed here. As a coach he would need to have coached more than one notable athlete or introduced a notable technique or training method. I also could not find any coverage of his book by reliable sources. Lewolka (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable BJJ athlete. Sourcing Lacks independent, in-depth coverage in both English and Russian. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage fails WP:GNG and his successes do not show WP notability. His two SJJIF world championships both came in senior (aka master) divisions where he was the only entrant. His European bronze medal was in a senior purple belt division. Papaursa (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat

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

Non notable film Jax 0677 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything for this, at least in English. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambig page for "Prabhat", which is a fairly common Indian name. Furius (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 02:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Raj

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

Most of the sources do not have WP:SIGCOV of the actor, and are more about the films that this actor has taken part in. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Tirishan (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, India, and Tamil Nadu. Tirishan (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfied WP:GNG, Led actor in many movies and received awards.PARVAGE ^talk! 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, found sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. DareshMohan (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Suleymanov

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

Granted my Russian is a bit rusty, but he doesn't appear to meet notability or SIGCOV and certainly doesn't meet WP:NBOX Nswix (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Russia. Nswix (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet criteria for WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't covered in any of the sources under WP:NBOX as others have said. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page as whole looks bad, doesn't pass general notability either. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NBOX and coverage seems to fail WP:GNG. No evidence of any major boxing accomplishments. The claim of a 3rd at the world championships appears to be false. The 2008 world championships the article claims he competed in was a youth tournament and no Russian is listed at winning a medal in the division claimed. Papaursa (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beaufort Street, Chelsea

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

The only source that directly addresses the street is the Virginia Woolf source, which is arguably primary in that regard. All other sources discuss buildings on that street (most of which have their own articles) or residents who happened to live on that street. Rs chen 7754 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rs chen 7754 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And? It exists, it has some buildings of passing importance, and has had some notable residents. Why ever would you delete? KJP1 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Our policies on notability. --Rs chen 7754 22:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article obviously has sufficient noteworthy content. The suggestion that the information could be accessed by searching throughout Wikipedia for individual articles dealing with the important buildings and notable people isn't helpful.--AntientNestor (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable street. Plenty of notable, sourced information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Typical article for a notable London street, based on its history, buildings and residents. How else should we organise such information? Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The buildings in it and the people who lived there are the proper content of the article together with other ancillary information such as locality, ambience etc. Other articles then give a more detailed treatment of buildings and residents as necessary if separately notable. I think we would have almost no street articles if we restricted them to streets that have an in-depth discussion of the street as a whole without mentioning any specific buildings or people. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because most city streets are not notable. You don't see this proliferation of city streets anywhere else on this site except London. Why is that? --Rs chen 7754 14:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because its history dates back to the Romans and there are a wealth of sources to draw on. London is not over-represented it is the streets of other cities that are under-represented. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English-language Wikipedia, so cities in English mother tongue countries will of course have more articles. New York City is the only other such city with a similiarly large population, but that only in relatively recent times (in 1800, London was already over 1 million, NYC a mere 60,000). And NYC is a much newer city; and mostly built on a grid, so has far fewer streets. Edwardx (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. plenty of historical info supported by references. To delete would be to lose a useful entry.
Keep — well-referenced article of a notable street included in other encyclopaedias and meeting WP:GNG. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- But does it? What about WP:SIGCOV? --Rs chen 7754 14:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edwardx and the creator of the article who is well known for creating notable articles... many London streets are well documented and have deep histories with regards to the buildings there and who lived there...it makes a better encyclopedia by including them. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As creator, I am dismayed to see so many notable British streets nominated by Rschen7754. Each has a unique history created by the structures built upon them and the people who lived there. A field in England could pass unremarked for thousands of years, then a hoard is dropped and a battle fought, a manor house built and a road run through it. The streets are the people, and the many references attest to that. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see where Reschen7754 is coming from. Beaufort Street itself seems not notable under the WP:GNG as there needs to be indepth coverage of the street itself and not one of the article's references has this (nor have I found any). However, I disagree with the part of the nomination that seems to suggest notable buildings on the street do not contribute to notability of the street. I would think that having a series of notable buildings on a street would help to establish notability of the street, as buildings are inherently part of a street. However, here there's only the now demolished Beaufort House which precedes the street's laying out and the one listed building, which I don't think is enough. Notable people who have a connection with the street do not make the street notable as Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) states Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. I've no wish to delete the article as it has encyclopedic merit on the history of the street, nor do I see a suitable merge target. Rupples (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that most of those buildings already have their own articles. Rs chen 7754 16:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you see this article as unnecessary duplication of content and view it as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK? Don't want to misrepresent you, just trying to gain an understanding, so do correct me if I'm wrong. Rupples (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. You remove the redundant content and I'm not sure that you have an article after that. One shouldn't be able to use the sources for the building to also make the road notable. Rs chen 7754 20:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is fundamentally wrong. It's not an article about a road, it's an article about a street. Absolutely details of the residents and the buildings are the proper sources for an article about a street. If we didn't include those, there would be no street articles at all, which is perhaps what Rschen7754 would prefer. What does Rschen7754 propose, that a street or road article should restrict itself to where it starts and ends and the quality of the tarmacadam? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. meet GNG. Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. London arterial of some importance. Largely residential. Coverage is sufficient for the GNG. gidonb (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raddle (website)

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

This article reads like an advertisement for what appears to be a rather small obscure website. Its only reliable source is a single Vice article remarking on its creation back in 2017, the other cited sources are from the website itself. I tried searching for other sources but found nothing, so it apparently doesn't meet the notability criteria of being covered by multiple, independent reliable sources. If it were notable, surely it would have received more coverage in the past 6 years? Grnrchst (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Grnrchst (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any other reliable sources (not even trivial mentions!!) other than that Vice one. Doesn't look notable, and I don't think it could be redirected or merged (where to?). OutsideNormality (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only mention of them was a reddit thread, saying this was launched as an alternative to reddit. I can't even find mentions of the website. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Zoom clone with more coverage than the website [5], using the same name. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Raddle has little real coverage in reliable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Sharma

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

A disambiguation page now exists for Shubham. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No reason to delete valid dab page just because there is a dab page for the given name. PamD 08:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, are you saying that it's exceedingly unlikely for an average English reader to ever search for "Shubham Sharma"? Because otherwise this is useful. Also, you can use {{transclude list}} to reduce duplication between those two lists. --Joy (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than one article about a person called Shubham Sharma. If there's no primary topic for "Shubham Sharma" then there needs to be a way to disambiguate, and a given name list article isn't good enough (note Shubham is a given name WP:Set index article as opposed to a disambiguation page). See, for example, Kevin Newman doesn't redirect to Kevin; John Quested doesn't redirect to John. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandralekha (TV series)

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

Non-notable, both sources are from Filmibeat, an unreliable source, and I cannot find any other coverage other than fluff about the cast members. Clearly does not fit WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Karnataka (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FilmiBeat is unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SP77 46-44

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

Entirely relies on large-scale surveys and therefore does not meet WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG due to not having significant coverage in scientific papers. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources found. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only sources which exist for this star are surveys and databases, which do not have any WP:SIGCOV of the subject or establish notability. The star fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only coverage is limited, trivial mentions in papers ([6], [7]) or routine coverage from databases, etc. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TestFreaks

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

Appears to be a non-notable website. Other than Mashable's article, there is no coverage about this topic. Plus, there is no article about it in Swedish Wikipedia. US-Verified (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick look in a Swedish newspaper archives gives far more than what seems to be available online. There's a two-page article in Dagens Industri, "Prylfantasten redo för nästa steg" (18 May 2007), from the launch of the company, and a shorter piece in Svenska Dagbladet, "Freaks får ny sajt" (24 April 2007), some relevant content in "Come back!" in Veckans Affärer (23 May 2007), "Testsajt söker kvinnor" in Dagens Nyheter (5 September 2008). Some of these are partly interviews, but I think it points towards notability. National Swedish media considered this a fairly big thing in the later 00s, it seems. /Julle (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added more refs to the article. /Julle (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your judgement. Happy to withdraw it. US-Verified (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Testseek

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

Appears to be a non-notable website. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, Netherlands, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search in a Swedish media archive didn't return anything substantial. /Julle (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone finds better sources. /Julle (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage to be found. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doesn't seem to have enough SIGCOV to warrant an article right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood's Quest

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

Fails WP:N, doesn't seem to receive significant coverage from independent reliable sources. OceanHok (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. OceanHok (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The game has an unmentioned review from Igromania, so there could be more out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - game has reviews on various notable sources including IGN Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 18:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. That's not an IGN review, just a directory page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that IGN hasn't written about it (or reviewed it). The IGN link is a database entry, with the only text there, what appears to be, the publishers blurb. certainly not SIGCOV that contributes to N. In fact, the only review from a notable source (i.e. one with an article), that's currently in the article, is Jeuxvideo's. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cakelot1: It has a review from Jeuxvideo? It seems like a very short news post to me. The Igromania one is the only review I could track down from a reliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this Igromania review, but that's it. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, was able to find a review from Absolute Games, the game could meet GNG if another review is found - I scoured Google and Archive.org and found nothing else. Waxworker (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a link to the Strategy Informer review: [8], probably not a reliable source. --Mika1h (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by reviews from Igromania, Absolute Games and Strategy Informer already mentioned in the discussion. Merko (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear and probably doubtful that Strategy Informer is a reliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only 2 reviews in RS that could be found, the game doesn't seem to possess the depth of coverage a notable game requires. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. Paul Lanza

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

Subject seems not to meet WP:BASIC. The creator of the article, User:Klanza16, has a username that suggests a possible relationship to the subject (see WP:COI), and previously created J Paul Lanza, which was speedily deleted under WP:A7. —Bkell (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity spam, nothing found for this person; a contractor who builds homes isn't terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ in accordance with the guidelines set forth in WP:NPOL (Wikipedia: Notability of Politicians). These guidelines establish that politicians who have served in legislative bodies at the international, national, or state/province-wide level are generally considered to be notable. (non-admin closure) AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Kshirsagar

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Maliner (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They meet WP:NPOL as an elected member of a state/province legislature in Indian. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indian state legislators pass WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as legislators pass WP:NPOL 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 09:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPOL as a member of a state legislature. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Warriors

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:N. Unable to identify any reliable source for the subject. OceanHok (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. OceanHok (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any promising leads on Global Newstream, Newspapers.com or MasterFile. Fails GNG and V at present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Niger at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Judo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Alhassane

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this back to WP:AFD as Raymarcbadz keeps removing the redirect (as decided in the last round). The article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I would support a redirect as well, but obviously can't keep reverting Raymarcbadz. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I've already added the content with citation sources. What seems to be your problem? Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want this PERMANENT? If you want a result as REDIRECT, then no one should edit the article ANYMORE and instead, the article SHOULD BE VIEWED AS SOURCE. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Olympics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Nswix (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, do you expect the users not to create a new one? You're heightening expectations on the content and source citation. Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in creating a new one, if the person isn't notable, they're not notable. If it keeps getting created without merit, it can also be salted. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Ismael Alhassane an Olympian? If he seems to be not notable, then this applies to the other athletes without a significant coverage. Should WP:OLY impose rules and guidelines about the Olympians when creating articles? Raymarcbadz (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, yes, the GNG applies to other athletes without significant coverage, and yes, they are likewise liable to be deleted.
As to whether WP:OLY has the power to impose their own notability guidelines, no. That was determined by a broad consensus on the Sports notability talk page, and cannot be overturned or overridden by a private WikiProject. (Not, to their credit, that they seem to be inclined to try.) Ravenswing 03:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and Nswix. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Niger at the 2020 Summer Olympics / Judo, fail WP:NOLYMPICS. Lewolka (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why the articles fail WP:NOLYMPICS? Do you want an article to contain a thorough, significant biographical profile of an athlete and not relying on the significant coverage of their Olympic journey? Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, Alhassane was eliminated in the first round of the men’s -66kg competition after a 9 seconds bout. He finished #17. Maybe this can explain the little coverage of his Olympic journey.[9] Lewolka (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) edited Lewolka (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was eliminated before the fourth minute of the five-minute round. Where did you get the info? Raymarcbadz (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9 seconds from the golden score in the first round.[10] He finished #17, "Significant coverage is likely to exist for Athletes from any sport if they have won a medal" all his results are public.[11][12] Lewolka (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be refined. You cannot impose a delete or redirect because the efforts made by an author will turn into waste and endless exhaustion. Raymarcbadz (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Just restore the redirect back if the newly added information and sources don't provide significant coverage, which, in my eyes, they don't. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have produced over a thousand articles about Olympians and you impose the unnecessary rules and guidelines to delete or redirect an article. If the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV applies to all of them, then about 60 to 70 percent of the articles produced by yours truly will be subject to deletion and redirect. All my efforts will turn into a waste of time because they are insignificant to the program. I will discuss this matter on WT:OLY because of these article restriction policies. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Policies change, it's nothing to be upset about. NBASE was also depreciated, so most baseball articles will likely not meet sourcing. This is an evolving wiki project. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raymarcbadz be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. It's easy to fall into that trap - I've done it before myself! Lethweimaster (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the concept of WP:BLUDGEON. What is this all about? Raymarcbadz (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON is clearly written and easily understandable. What part of it do you claim not to comprehend? Ravenswing 01:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Equipe article is about a different individual, and is trivial coverage. Nothing found for this individual, lack of any sort of coverage we can sue for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Equipe still mentions the athlete. Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomitator. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I have No objection to a consensus redirect.Lethweimaster (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to trust the nominator? Is Sportsfan 1234 the administrator of WP:OLY? Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter if nominator is admin or not. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above: I'm seeing nothing but routine sports coverage and trivial mentions that fail SIGCOV. Raymarcbadz also seems to be laboring under the outdated presumption that simply having been an Olympian is a presumptive notability pass; someone who repeatedly talks of the "thousand" Olympics articles he's created really ought to read WP:NOLYMPICS. Ravenswing 01:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why do we need to question the athlete's participation to the Games. If this has been a presumptive notability pass, will an author recreate an article once deleted? Perhaps impossible. We exhaust all our means to cite sources and establish content on the article. Why do we need to read and follow WP:NOLYMPICS? What's the purpose of this evolving project? Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(blinks HARD) You need to read and follow WP:NOLYMPICS because you are involved in article creation of Olympians, and that is the notability criterion governing such creations. Honestly, you are seriously bringing into question your competence to edit Wikipedia, which is a subject for debate at the current ANI thread on your actions. Ravenswing 02:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"winning a medal in a competition with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants receive a medal) is not an indicator of presumed notability, and other exceptions may be listed at sport specific guidelines." – Can someone explain this to the public in general terms or provide the appropriate example? This statement might be unfathomable for any user to read, especially for those hold liable for the article creation. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is straightforward and easy to understand for anyone with competent English comprehension. But anyway, you don't even need to understand NOLY because the far more important factor is establishing that a subject meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Niger at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Judo. The original AfD got it right. There is no evidence of significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG, merely typical sports reporting. It's true he competed in the Olympics where he lost his first fight in the round of 64, but competing in the Olympics is no longer sufficient to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thandeka Ndlovu

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

Completely unsourced article about a television character, written entirely in-universe and not offering any evidence of her real-world significance. As always, television characters do not automatically get their own standalone biographies as topics independent of the show they were in just because they "existed" -- fictional characters can qualify for articles that demonstrate and properly source some genuine analysis of their real-world impact, but do not get standalone articles if you just write a fansite-style "biography" listing a few in-universe facts about their fictional lives sourced nowhere at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Africa. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a number of real people with the same name, some of whom are possibly notable, but this fictional character isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails WP:GNG, bad case of WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which speedy deletion criterion applies? Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 I-League 3

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

This appears to be an entirely blank article on a fourth-tier semi-professional soccer league season. WP:NSEASONS doesn't seem to indicate that this sort of thing is presumed notable, and I'm unable to find WP:SIGCOV of this season after conducting an online search. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://khelnow.com/football/2023-06-indian-football-aiff-league-committee-meeting

It will be updated soon as competition starts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.190.165 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable season for low-level competition. Giant Snowman 18:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is 4th tier competition and national level. so it's not going to be semi pro. and league is going to be started by this year so the details everything will get updated on the page 103.249.7.210 (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moch. Bahrudin

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

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources is what WP:SPORTBASIC states as the bare minimum requirement for a sportsperson to have an article. I can find no evidence that this footballer meets this requirement and even an Indonesian source search yields no sources that could be used to expand the article on this footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any more sources about the Player.

Crainsaw (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcanal

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

An article as WP:BROCHURE, the website clearly fails at WP:GNG. I couldn't find any reliable source to prove some kind of WP:NME or WP:WEB. Chiserc (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Health and fitness, United States of America, and Ohio. Chiserc (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these type of platforms themselves receive less coverage but it is widely cited in Wikipedia and acceptable source in the medical field.G19US (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is the website staff, the Forbes Council and various PR items. I can't find sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn and the only Delete vote has been struck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Hartmann

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

Non-notable physical therapist. The only WP:RS I found are the two listed in the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/northern_ireland/2822341.stm and https://web.archive.org/web/20101006083637/http://www.independent.ie/sport/hurling/shefflin-recovery-absurd-2322902.html), each of which gives him only a passing mention. That's a long way from WP:SIGCOV. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ definitely not notable in his own right just for having worked on a few known athletes. ww2censor (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ho-hum, well just about, if BHG is happy that's ok with me. Well done Guliolopez though the sources still mostly focus on his athletes. I'm out. ww2censor (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My own WP:BEFORE has returned a number of news articles (Reuters, Irish Independent, Irish Times, Irish Examiner, etc) which deal with cover the subject as a primary topic. And in some biographical depth. I have added some of these to the article. To my own read, there is more here than passing mentions and notability-by-association.... Guliolopez (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. The sources found by @ Guliolopez seem to me to comfortably meet GNG. Thanks, Guliolopez.
@ww2censor, what do you make of the new sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The delete !votes are short and based on classic arguments to avoid, while the keep !votes were argued against extensively. Hence I don't see a strong agreement on what to do with the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alim Industries Limited

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, Broken link and companies website is used as ref. M.parvage (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. M.parvage (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 21:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this company, while small, appears to be a significant participant in the market for domestically produced agricultural machinery in Bangladesh. The company gets regular coverage in the Daily Star and has been mentioned in more than one scholarly article about agricultural mechanization. I've added a bit to the article. It's a bit thin, but considering the limited scope of the article there is enough out there to support the text and to meet notability.

The nominator doesn't say what the broken link is, but it appears to be the gonews24.com cite which (based on Google translate) appears to be unrelated to this company. If someone with local language capability wants to delete it that would be welcome. As to the question of citing the company website, there's nothing wrong with using a primary source, although it's not preferred, if notability is shown through secondary sources.

I would encourage @M.parvage to familiarize himself with WP:BEFORE before making further nominations for AfD. I found a number of sources easily, and there are others out there. AfD nomination should be based on availability of sources not the current state of sourcing. Oblivy (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See:

The article can't be fixed through normal editing, As it has no WP:SIGCOV.
The article isn't created recently.

So,accroding to the guidelines of WP:BEFORE, This article meets Wikipedia deletion policy.

Also,

In terms of your point: significant participant in the market, is or may be a word of mouth. None of the souces are represent it M.parvage (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned WP:BEFORE to point out the expectation that editors will actively search for sources before nominating an article. Simply saying it "can't be fixed" isn't very helpful, especially when there are many sources discussing this company and its activities (including the gonews24 article, which on re-investigation does have several sentences about the company).

Out of curiosity, what was the broken link you mention in the nomination above?

Comment: User: @Oblivy is not familiar with wiki. Removed AFD template from the article, here

M.parvage (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I accidentally removed the template, and that error was reverted shortly afterwards. This is the second time it's happened recently, and I'm trying to figure out why. I don't think this detracts from my contributions to this discussion. Oblivy (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that the user@Oblivy do not know how to contribute in Wiki, as he did here in this page 1 & 2. Except replying. M.parvage (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news providing zero coverage that satisfies WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article creator. I want to keep my involvement in this minimal if possible as I don't want to seem biased. Please see below a list of sources which I believe shows significant coverage on the subject in question:

Islam, Rafiqul (2019-12-17). "Local firm making farm machinery". The Daily Star.
ফয়সাল, ফজলে এলাহী মোহাম্মদ (2019-12-02). সিলেট অঞ্চলে প্রবাসী বিনিয়োগ: একটি সামগ্রিক পর্যালোচনা [Diaspora Investment in Sylhet Region: A Holistic Review]. GoNews24 (in Bengali). Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Parvez, Sohel (2019-01-23). কৃষি যন্ত্রপাতি উত্পাদনে সরকারি পৃষ্ঠপোষকতা প্রয়োজন [Manufacturing of agricultural machinery requires government patronage]. Kaler Kantho (in Bengali).

In regards to using the company website as a source, to my understanding of WP:GNG, this does not preclude it from being notable, but rather prevents that particular source from being an indicator of notability.

Also, which link is broken? They all seem fine as far as I can see. Alivardi (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a company therefore we apply NCORP criteria (in conjunction with GNG). There are really two types of sources - those to support fact within the article and those which meet the criteria for establishing notability. So, yes, the company website can be used (to a point) for the first but is not independent so is not used for the second. As per WP:SIRS, for the second we require references provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.

The Daily Star reference does not contain in-depth "Independent Content" as it simply regurgitates statements from the company without providing any independent analysis. The information (about the company) is sourced from the company and their execs.
The gonews24 article is a mere mention-in-passing, a couple of sentences about low prices. This is not sufficient in-depth information to satisfy CORPDEPTH
The kalerkantho article relies entirely on an interview provided by Alimul Ehsan Chowdhury, MD of Alim Industries Limited (says it in the byline). This fails ORGIND as it is not "Independent Content".

Also, as article content creator, you are welcome to participate here and of course you would prefer to keep the article, that isn't being biased. Perhaps though you can locate references that meet NCORP? HighKing 15:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing I can't understand how a bylined article is not independent simply because the information is sourced from the article subject. That's how a lot of journalism is done - journalists go ask people for relevant information. For sure a relatively passive interview, or reprinting/paraphrasing a press release, might lack independence but I think you're setting too high a bar. Oblivy (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A call to emotion is a poor choice on words on your part. The NCORP standard was specifically updated from previous policy in 2017 to address this very siuation, amongst other. Its fails WP:SIRS. Interviews are not independent. The article is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivy, WP:ORGIND is very clear with regards to a requirement for references to contain "Independent Content"? It's not a high bar at all if you're interested in Wikipedia articles not being influenced by PR and hype. Information provided by the company or anybody linked to the company is inarguably not independent. That doesn't mean that articles that use quotes or company information automatically don't fit the criteria. It just means that if the vast majority of information in the article is simply regurgitating company-provided info then we don't see that as meeting the criteria for notability. For example, if the journalist were to use company-provided information in order to further develop independent content such as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, or fact checking or even provide this independent content from another source, then - so long as the content can be *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject company - that would meet the criteria for Independent Content. Hope that explanation helps. HighKing 11:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't agree with you there, @HighKing. The article is bylined, and it cites others such as the agriculture minister and "industry insiders" (assuming good faith journalism, that's not just the company which is identified).

As to @Scope creep's comment, I see no appeal to emotion in what I wrote, which focuses on the reality that journalists source information from people with knowledge. Oblivy (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bylines are nothing to do with it and your ignoring established consensus with the WP:NCORP standard. And whether it cites other people is neither here nor there. Its not independent and that is an expert on WP:NCORP telling you that. This is about the second or third time in as many weeks that you have decided in an Afd to ignore established consensus. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to teach me how much sourcing is required to make a newspaper article independent please use my talk page. I don't think your comment is helpful to this discussion. Oblivy (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the discussion is taking place and its always here. If you want to take a position, that is fine, it is perfectly reasonable but you must provide evidence to support it. Not make a statement of the type that has been comprehensively discharged as being an unreliable way of providing notability for company's, for more than a decade ago. scope_creep^Talk 16:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGIND deals with two types of non-independent journalism: 1) an author who is not independent of the subject, and 2) so-called "churnalism" where a journalist just regurgitates information from the subject. In the article in question, the journalist sought information from other sources and wrote an article. There follow eight bullet point examples none of which clearly applies to this article (and you haven't said which one does apply). Oblivy (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oblivy, WP:SIRS says that content must meet all the criteria - so it must contain in-depth (CORPDEPTH) "Independent Content" *about the company*. This article arguably does not contain any in-depth content - instead it provides a short overview of the company. When we look at specific or in-depth information, it has all been provided by the company and/or the execs. This information is clearly attributed. When I look at the information attributed to industry insiders or the agriculture minister, it is neither in-depth (a single sentence is not in-depth) nor about the company (market stats are not about the company). So to be clear, once you remove the information that has been provided by the company and/or the execs, we're left with content that fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If you think otherwise, please point to a specific paragraph which you believe meets the criteria. HighKing 13:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not WP:ORGIND at all. It's about having to parse this (clearly independently-written, multiple-sourced) article to prove the writer sourced in-depth information elsewhere? That's not WP:ORGIND, not on any plain reading. I appreciate that you explained yourself, which is is more than @Scope creep did. So thank you, @HighKing your earlier comments now make more sense, but I give up. Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on which way is best to get across the reasons why the reference fails NCORP. You can either say that the article contains in-depth information, but that because the information is provided by the company and their execs it is not independent and fails ORGIND (which is the way I tend to explain it) or you can say that an examination of the independent content does not contain in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH. Six of one, half dozen of the other. HighKing 12:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP

FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former members of the New Zealand Parliament elected earliest

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

Quite frankly, I cannot wrap my mind around this being an actual topic on Wikipedia. Living former members of the NZ Parliament who were elected more than 40 years ago. We do need frequent reminders that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. If people really wanted to know this information, all the election dates of former MPs are available on the election articles in which they were first elected. Ajf773 (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 'who were elected more than 40 years ago' is a completely arbitrary cut-off point, which will also shift as the article ages. It's also WP:ONESOURCE from one single 1985 book, which miraculously already seems to know which people would still be alive as of June 2023. (Did Nostradamus write it?!). By contrast, List of longest-serving members of the New Zealand Parliament may be said to be defining. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another one of those “list of famous persons, by non-defining criteria X, by completely arbitrary criteria Y” lists that makes zero sense whatsoever. Dronebogus (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-fascism

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

A non-notable dictionary definition. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 10:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. I considered bringing this to AfD when it was created, as it appears to be more of a passing descriptor rather than an ideological position. As far as I can see none of the sources actually say it is a thing and instead are just using the term to describe various parties. — Czello ^(music) 12:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As previously marked, this is an essay-like entry entirely consisting of original research on the part of the original editor.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is not just a dictionary definition, but an imprecise and unhelpful one. Basically, a list of times that someone has said that something was "semi-fascist", but without any evidence that someone's tried to systematically define what this label means, or even claimed that it was a distinct category unto itself. jp×g 17:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that this appears to be synonymous with Para-fascism. You might have better luck finding literature on "para-fascism" than "semi-fascism". ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gscholar returned some results. However, they appear to never give a specific definition of the term, and are only included as labels. Maybe a mention at fascism could exist, but not as a standalone article

Same goes for quasi-facism. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 07:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talimuddin Inter College

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:School. Maliner (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NSCHOOL.AmusingWeasel (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds International School

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks any sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This school might possibly be notable. Coverage on this two is not great, but it's start. [13] [14]. This seems to have significant coverage: [15] Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 10:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MVP Disc Sports

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

Fails WP:NCORP, very little in terms of actual coverage of the company besides WP:ROUTINE mentions as sponsors. This poorly written article feels more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. IceBergYYC (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Michigan. IceBergYYC (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of conjectures#Disproved (no longer conjectures). ✗plicit 14:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of disproved mathematical ideas

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

Very poorly referenced (two footnotes), neither suggests WP:LISTN is met. No inclusion criteria - what is an "idea"? Maybe a list of disproved conjectures would be a reasonable idea, per Template:Disproved conjectures, but this is not what we have here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone thinks the article needs improvement, then let him improve it instead of getting it deleted. What kind of service to the world is it to delete articles? I think it's interesting to have a list of disproved mathematical ideas, and I would hope that people would add to it rather than criticizing and trying to get it deleted. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- @Eric Kvaalen WP:ITSINTERESTING... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What counts as a mathematical idea is rather vague, this should at least be specified in the article. If one takes mathematical idea to mean conjecture, then there is an overlap with List of conjectures#Disproved (no longer conjectures). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. After some consideration, I'd say the best course of action is to merge to List of conjectures#Disproved (no longer conjectures), and format as a table to unify the style with the sections Open problems and Conjectures now proved (theorems). --Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't need both this and List of conjectures#Disproved (no longer conjectures). XOR'easter (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Seems like a notable topic that doesn’t need a separate article Dronebogus (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problems:

All articles fail WP:GNG (WP:SIGCOV).
Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest.
Other precedents:

Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest 2016: deleted.
List of languages in the Turkvision Song Contest: deleted.
Turkvision Song Contest 2016: deleted.

I am nominating the remaining country/region pages of Turkvision by common demand at the previous "Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest" AfD, where participants said:

all Turkvision country/region articles should be deleted and All Turkvison by country/region articles deserve to be deleted (especially the per country/region AND year articles are way over the top. As for the regular by country or region articles, these summarizing stats will be sufficent. The by country/region list could be extended with zero medals countries.); and
no exception should be made for Azerbaijan (I do not see why Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest should be an exception); nor
any exception for any other country or region despite some more sourcing (While there may be additional sources for Azerbaijan in particular, I'm still not convinced that the contest's overall notability warrants this level of detail.).

If anyone would like to recycle anything, I strongly recommend participants to indicate which parts from which articles they would like to recycle to which other articles if they suggest a "Merge". Just saying "Merge" doesn't really help the closer. So far, everyone does appear to agree that the main articles about Turkvision should be kept, and that these articles do pass WP:GNG. So if anyone wants to recycle anything, please indicate to which of the following main articles:

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Events. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and for the reasons stated in the previous related AfD. Grk1011 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also suggest nominating Kazakhstan in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015 as well. Grk1011 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Grk1011 Thanks, I didn't even see it! Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015 might eventually be merged into Bala Turkvision Song Contest, as there was only 1 edition. The category Category:Bala Turkvision Song Contest could then be deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination; reasons stated in previous AfD remain valid for these articles as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- In a separate but related exercise, I have nominated four redirected articles which conform to the same arguements as above to WP:RfD (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 19#Xinjiang in the Turkvision Song Contest)
Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, well done! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles and redirects, per nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Analogical models. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Functional analog (electronic)

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

Merge into Analogical models, not enough material to justify its own page, when there are many other related pages Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to Analogical models. Artem.G (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Pamoja Art Society

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

Created by SPA, seems to be promotional in nature. North of the Zambezi 05:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Louisiana. AllyD (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatantly promotional, created by an account now blocked for spam. In fact in my opinion it qualifies for speedy deletion as promotional, but now this discussion has been started we may as well let it run its course, I suppose. JBW (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and only 1 gnews hit. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Lanskoy

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

sourced to databases. this is one of those articles on non-notable sportspeople. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree that there is no coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, but he won medals at three different World Table Tennis Championships and this may be enough. Chiserc (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
enough? for what??? lettherebedarklight 晚安 11:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be enough to validate notability. I think with a WP:BEFORE could be easily seen that there is coverage, so my statement about no coverage is actually not correct, it requires much better research on not-easily-found historical sources. Apart from the source Alpha3031 found, I found a mention of Michel Lanskoy on Dagblad voor Amersfoort and a mention in the Table Tennis magazine (Vol. 10 March, 1952). Because it is an athlete of 1940s-1950s, it requires a research beyond websites, mainly on historic newspapers and magazines. Although I can't investigate French language sources easily, I also found mentions of Michel Lanskoy on International herald tribune, many reports on L'Athlète (Bordeaux) and Libération. So it's not weak, but keep for me. Chiserc (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a chance he appears in contemporaneous French newspapers, but the article as it stands fails WP:GNG and if he's not in those newspapers, the article would need to be deleted. I don't know how to search those newspapers, though, so my !vote should be considered as a very soft one. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on French sources but there seems to be some newspaper coverage? Like, in the Wednesday issue of L'Athlète: "Le champion du monde de tennis de table Bergmann: devrait faire triompher la sélection anglaise devant Bordrez - Lanskoy". @Lettherebedarklight, can I ask if you've found any foreign language sources at all, whether or not you've fully evaluated them? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i did not find that in my source search. lettherebedarklight 晚安 12:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For English language sources, there's also some coverage in the November 1965 Sports Illustrated, Spongers Seldom Chisel: But the big match was Satoh-Lanskoy. Everyone was waiting to see that one." "Michel Lanskoy? The Frenchman? Why him?" asked an eager junior. "He's not so good." I'd say the SIGCOV here is more of Satoh than Lanskoy, but this is just from the fully indexed and online searchable sources, I would be very surprised if there wasn't more. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact he appeared in Sports Illustrated at all suggests to me there has to be more out there in French? It's not impossible it's a fluke, but that seems a fairly significant mention. SportingFlyer T·C 13:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am now confident that this can be retained. Keep as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not absolutely convinced it's a keep yet - I'd like another source just to be sure. I'd just be surprised if we've found the extent to which he's been covered though. SportingFlyer T·C 14:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't see why it has been nominated for deletion, multiple bronze medals in the Swaythling Cup (the worlds biggest table tennis team event, along with women's equivalent). I can only presume it is a lack of understanding of sport that has prompted the nomination. ApricotFoot (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Berlin destinations

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

As was discussed at the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations and quoted in a recent related AFD, the general consensus is that they are not content for Wikipedia. As per the subsequent AN discussion, subsequent AFDs may be nominated in a orderly fashion provided the link to the RFC is included and the closer takes the RFD discussion into consideration.

As per the recent AFDs on numerous Airline destination lists, the articles on their own fail WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and some of the nominated airline list articles such as SkyGreece and Virgin Express would also fail WP:CORP via No Inherited Notability, and to quote from WP:CORP: An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. One other Airline destination list (List of US Airways Express destinations) is largely part of a defunct main carrier (US Airways) where some of the information may easily be covered in the related parent articles.

The airline lists specifically nominated in this AFD are related to companies that have since closed down and ceased services. Many of the limited sources in the nominated articles are largely from an archived versions of the closed airlines' websites and would not pass WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:V.

WP:BEFORE is not compulsory, however a lot of sources either points back to mirror websites of Wikipedia or archived references from aviation blog / community sources such as airlineroute.net or airliners.net and from the former airline's websites.

As per the last AFD, I'm open to suggestions, but considering the limited sources that may rescue those articles, For now, I would suggest Delete as the nominator. Coastie43 (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Coastie43 (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all the same problems with the previous similar AfDs. As far as I can see, these are all defunct airlines and the lists claim to be destinations at the point of closure. This information could be tediously checked against published route-maps but that wouldn't be am independent source. It could be collated from various databases but that would be getting close to WP:OR, and I'm not clear how it would be possible to create a page without one or the other. Fundamentally I think there are better places to find this information and WP is not everything WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Per the RFC, per WP:NOT, and per WP:CORP. Articles exhaustively listing routine, run-of-the-mill services provided by a business are a straight-forward contravention of WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Articles sourced only to the company providing those services and run-of-the-mill stories in insufficiently-independent industry press fail WP:NCORP. A regularly-updated board listing the services of a company is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS.

The TL;DR version is there is no reason why we should keep what are essentially the equivalent of a list of all the cities that Blockbuster Video had branches in on 7th August 1989. We do not exhaustively list the services of a company, still less exhaustively list the services of a company on a random and essentially meaningless date. This applies regardless of the notability of the company that provides those services.

PS - JMWt I think the WP:OR point is valid but also that it would apply even if the company was not defunct. This is because these lists always include "terminated" destinations, but the only way that you can confirm that these destinations are terminated is to go to the website of the airline in question and see that they do not list it as a destination - that is, you have to infer something from the source that it does not explicitly state (i.e., WP:OR). Even if a news story can be found saying that the service has been terminated, this only confirms that the service was terminated as of the date of that story, not either at the date given in the article (typically one years in the past - e.g. the Air Berlin list is supposed to be accurate as of October 2017) or at present. This is because airline services change week-to-week constantly and they may well have started serving that destination again. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think, on reflection, the WP:OR point is more likely to be important for airlines that are still running; it's possible that a RS could be found showing destinations soon before the airline closes, but almost by definition a list of destinations non-redundant airline is almost inevitably going to be sourced as I've described above.

I guess I'm biased but to me I can't see why would host this information for any airline, redundant or not. JMWt (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alen Kozić

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below. Giant Snowman 17:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Serbia and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [16], [17], and [18], among many more sources. Played in MLS, America top flight and career in ealry 2000s so definitely has offline sources as well. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Links 1 and 3 unavailable, link 2 is just a results page? Giant Snowman 14:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments [19], [20], [21], [22], is it enough? I am not so sure. Depends on what others find, give me a ping, if other people find better sources. It does look like an article that can go either way of GNG. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[23][24] are match reports and [25][26] mention him once each. He does however at least have some coverage in the The Tampa Tribune [27][28][29]Alvaldi (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with this significant coverage from the The Tampa Tribune [30][31][32], South Florida Sun Sentinel [33] and the St. Petersburg Times [34]. Pinging @GiantSnowman and @Govvy if you want to review them.

Alvaldi (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Cheers @Alvaldi: Looks a lot better, the article still needs improving, fixing up better. Also the photo looks like it was a scan of a newspaper, is that a copyvio image? Govvy (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aline (footballer, born 1989)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources out there, unsurprising for somebody who made multiple appearances for Brazil and was a squad member at 4 major tournaments. Other sources I've found include this and this. Giant Snowman 08:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you saying the UCF and FIFA sources are sigcov? Dougal18 (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FIFA is, UCF is not. But there are already enough sources in the article, and more detailed below. Clearly notable, a bad nomination. Giant Snowman 10:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs a thorough rewrite, however, the subject is almost definitely notable. Marca published a lengthy retirement announcement for her which is quote-heavy but still contains enough independent content, in my view. Another article from Marca, again, has a few quotes but plenty of analysis from David Menayo, one of their main women's football journalists. Olimpia Todo Dia contains a lot of information that we could add to the article. Yle, essentially the Finnish version of the BBC, wrote this lengthy piece specifically about her. Helsingin Sanomat, a major news source in Finland, also provides what appears to be significant coverage in this article but sadly it's paywalled, however, given that the first sentence translates to Aline Reis, who plays for Brazil in THE Women's World Cup, is one of the most famous goalkeepers in the world of soccer today. I would be willing to bet that the article is non-trivial coverage of her. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Helsingin Sanomat has a two-week trial option to view the article. The article contains significant independent coverage of her 2012 season with Finnish club SeMi. I've added a citation to the article for that part of her club career. -Socccc (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article is now in much better shape. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG with the sources mentioned by Spiderone. Alvaldi (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Seriously... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is the least of this article's concerns; would rather spend time improving it than debating that. -Socccc (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above, per improvement to the article. Govvy (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is enough SIGCOV available per Spiderone and Socccc, as well as a few Portuguese language sources (this interview is paywalled but looks to contain enough secondary coverage). Jogurney (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:SPORTBASIC. This shouldn't have been nominated. Regardless, great cleanup by Socccc. gobonobo ^c 17:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full credit to User:Dougal18 for the bulk of the post-AfD cleanup. -Socccc (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly the strangest AfD nom I've yet seen - tag it for clean-up or needing refs, sure, but it shouldn't take a genius to know that someone who has won top-level competitions in their sport passes notability. Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Marazano

AfDs for this article:

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

I have multiple reasons for putting this in an AfD.

1. The person who wrote most of the article has the username Marazano. If you check him on the French Wikipedia, you will see that his user page says that he is an author. 2. For me, it fails WP:GNG, because the vast majority of the article only praises him for his writings, and the vast majority of it is unsourced. The only sources are ones confirming he wrote those books, not that they have gotten "critical acclaim" and "positive reviews", like the article states. 3. I have put this on AfD before, but only 1 person voted (excluding a sockpuppet). Cheers! // 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Science fiction and fantasy. Cheers! // 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Marazano" uploaded the image of Marazano that is featured in the article, and used "Own work" when publishing it. Huh. Cheers! // 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Comics and animation, and France. Netherzone (talk) 16:23, 3 June 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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus.

Previous discussions: 2023-04 (closed as no consensus)

Related discussions: 2023-04 S.A.M. (comics) (closed as redirect)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strewth' the sourcing is rubbish! The second reference no longer points at anything to do with Marazano at all, and the other three barely mention his name. They are indeed reviews of the books, but only the sort of review I would expect of any book that's been published. He's clearly been involved in some successful books. What we really need here is some input from someone who actually knows about French Bande Dessinée who can assess which of the plethora of reviews are meaningful. Elemimele (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some of the low-quality citations. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 09:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious autobiography and case of self-promotion. Curiocurio (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Cunard's argument is persuasive and was not refuted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yee Jee Tso

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. The Film Creator (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Roles don't need to be leading to contribute to notability. I added a reference about his appearance at a convention in Washington state. Here are a few more references: https://www.google.com/search?&q="Yee Jee Tso"&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Bryher, David (April 2016). "The Big Picture". Doctor Who Magazine. No. 497. pp. 32–33. Archived from the original on 2023-06-18. Retrieved 2023-06-18 – via Pocketmags.
  The article notes: "When Yee Jee Tso was cast as Chang Lee in 1996’s Doctor Who TV Movie, he saw the role as just another job. He didn’t realise that, once Doctor Who gets its claws into you, it doesn’t let go easily. The series followed him and changed his life forever. ... now, 20 years on from the TV Movie, Yee Jee proves his own devotion to Doctor Who in a new book, Time and Spaces. At the heart of the book are a series of photographs taken by Yee Jee during the movie’s production, which, after laying forgotten in a box for years, are seeing the light of day here for the first time. The book also features snippets taken from Yee Jee’s collection of production documents, along with some new photos taken by the actor of locations used during filming in Vancouver, Canada, his home town."
  The article later notes: "Yee Jee latest acting job is in Birth of the Dragon, a movie telling the tale of action star Bruce Lee’s run-in with a Shaolin monk in 1960s San Francisco – but still his 20-year-old role in Doctor Who won’t let him go. In recent years, he’s starred (not as Chang Lee, but sometimes co-starring with Daphne Ashbrook) in four Doctor Who and Bernice Summerfield audio dramas for Big Finish Productions."
2. Wickens, Barbara, ed. (1996-04-22). "The joy of living". Maclean's. Vol. 109, no. 17. p. 43. EBSCOhost 9605017522.
  The article notes: "When Vancouver actor Yee Jee Tso says he has seen his acting career come to life, it is not just a figure of speech. Tso starred in the Global CanWest teen television drama Madison as Twister, only to have the character die at the end of the show's first season in 1994. But the producers were so impressed by the 21-year-old actor that they used a little creative licence to bring him back to life in the current season as Twister's identical cousin, Grant Wong. "Usually, when you get killed off in a series, that's it," says Tso, who also recently completed work on a movie filming in Vancouver. He plays a street kid named Chang Lee in Doctor Who, which stars Paul McGann as the time-travelling doctor in a Fox TV movie that carries on from where the British sci-fi series left off in 1989. "Things have really started coming together for me this year," says Tso. "It's good to be alive.""
3. Spaner, David (2004-04-17). "Aisle seat. Yee Jee Tso wishes he never saw Cyborg". The Province. Archived from the original on 2023-06-18. Retrieved 2023-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Vancouver actor Yee Jee Tso had a substantial supporting role in the movie Antitrust. He was also a regular on TV's Madison and has appeared in other films and television. Tso's about to star on stage in Wild Abandon, previewing April 20–21 at the The Loft Theatre, then moving to The Havana Theatre."
4. Shales, Tom (1996-05-12). "Fox gives life to Doctor Who". Daily Press. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2023-06-18. Retrieved 2023-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article provides a sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "... Yee Jee Tso engagingly plays Chang Lee, a young Asian gang member recruited by the Master."
5. "Dr. Who issue". Doctor Who Magazine. 2003. pp. 9, 58. Retrieved 2023-06-18 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes on page 9: "Yee Jee Tso provides solid support, but the movie is really about the Doctor and Grace ..."
  The article notes on page 58: "Wednesday 17 was the final day at Ogden Street and saw Eric Roberts and Yee led Tso joining the cast for a night shoot from 4pm ... Playing Chang Lee was Yee Tso, a Hong Kong-born actor who grew up in Vancouver. Tso had been a regular in Madison and had a recurring role in Fox's Sliders as Wing; he had done a lot of stage work and had met Roberts briefly when they had worked on the TV movie Past Perfect. The actor recalled enjoying some of the Tom Baker Doctor Who serials he had seen as a child."
6. Miller, Lisa (2001-01-24). "Fast, cheap, and easy experiences lead to instant gratification". Westwood Pine Press. Archived from the original on 2023-06-18. Retrieved 2023-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Until Milo's exodus, he and partner Teddy (Yee Jee Tso) were garage-dwelling geeks on the precipice of their own convergence breakthrough. Having sworn to make the technology free, Teddy refuses to join Milo at NURV. A more courageous filmmaker might have cast Tso in Phillippe's role. Where Philippe is pouty and sleepy-eyed, Tso is spirited and percolating."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yee Jee Tso (Chinese: 曹益吉) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sewa Sadan English Boarding School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL, schools should meet either WP:NORG or WP:GNG but this institution doesn't seem to meet either. Mero Sewa is written in a promotional tone and doesn't appear to be WP:RS nor is the depth substantial enough. Jimdofree also doesn't seem to be independent of the subject as it asks for financial contributions to help rebuild the school towards the end of the text. I found no decent sources in Nepali either (सेवा सदन अंग्रेजी बोर्डिङ स्कूल) not that we would expect any for an English medium school. Article created by an WP:SPA. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 00:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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