Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 24	March 26 >

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael English (cricketer)

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

English has not appeared in a List A match as the article claims, however, I do not think this is an error on the part of the original article creator. I think the Ireland Wolves v Scotland A matches initially had List A status, but this status has since been rescinded, likely by Cricket Ireland, which as an ICC Full Member, has the power to give/remove status to matches. StickyWicket (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Looks to have featured in a delisted fixture. Not seeing a suitable redirect here either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A team matches involving full members were supposed to have List A status. But this match is not listed as a "List A" match. So, player is non-notable because of not playing in any match having official status. RoboCric (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look to meet the criteria of WP:GNG, which is the actual basis for keeping/deleting articles, not whether fixtures are or aren't List A (which doesn't demonstrate notability). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, I do not think there is any evidence of the subject having the sort of notability that would be needed for them to have a wikipedia article.Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject doesn’t meet WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 02:18, 1 April 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delbert Jones

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

There's nothing that shows up on Google, unfortunately. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 23:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 23:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Him not showing up on Google might well be because it's not true that he competed at the 1932 Olympics. His Olympedia entry states that he didn't compete. Unless someone can find something about him, it's a clear lack of WP:GNG. Schwede 66 08:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source on the page appears to be a Mirror. Can't find any sources showing WP:SIGCOV. Globesam (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unfortunately going to have to delete, I was just trying to contribute but seems like it’s not credible. Yellow Rabbit 123 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since NOLYMPICS has been changed, simply participating is no longer a guarantee of notability. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 31 March 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maccabiah medalists in fencing (men)

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

Fails WP:GNG (the topic) and the lists are full of red links. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable tournament and competitors. Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Maccabiah is a notable tournament that has been held since the 1930s. It is a list. Where does it say lists need sources? If there are red links, just unlink. It's as simple as that.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of blue links in this list justifies to keep it. I have supported other AfDs of Maccabiah medal lists where this was not the case. If red/blue links are an argument, both their absence and presence should be respected! gidonb (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article for Maccabiah Games states It is the third-largest sporting event in the world by number of competitors. There should be coverage for the athletes who won medals. They surely have an official website, should any sincerely doubt any information and wish to verify it. Anyway, plenty of blue links to make it a valid navigational list. List are far more useful than categories, since they allow for more information than a simple category such as Category:Maccabiah Games medalists in fencing does. Dream Focus 20:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page satisfies WP:LISTN as a notable topic. The list has sufficient notability to satisfy WP:LISTN, as demonstrated by the subjects’ notability. If WP:LISTN weren’t met, then deletion would be appropriate. However, by meeting WP:LISTN, the subjects demonstrate notability. Since these conditions are met, the page should be kept. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 02:31, 1 April 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 consensus that, after the rewrite, WP:GNG is met, which makes arguments relying on WP:NPOL moot. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Peñalosa

AfDs for this article:

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

article not meet WP:GNG Endrabcwizart (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Debatable if the subject meets WP:GNG (I'm leaning on probably), but my problem is that this has been brought as a draft a number of times and declined a number of times. This is an even poorer version of the article than what has existed in draftspace and would need significant improvements, like adding citations to be included in mainspace. —WildComet ^talk 20:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in municipal elections they haven't won, but that's the only notability claim being attempted here — and having reviewed several of the prior draft submissions, people have consistently failed to follow the direction, given more than once, that the key to making him notable enough for a Wikipedia article was to show proper reliable source coverage demonstrating preexisting notability as an urbanist before running as a candidate. And I'll point out, further, that this is not an "I dislike the guy" argument at all — I voted for the guy in the October municipal election, and depending on who the final candidates are in June it's not out of the question that I might vote for him again. But my personal views on the local politics of my own city are quite independent of how Wikipedia works, and how Wikipedia works is that politicians have to hold a notable office, not just run for one, to become accepted as notable politicians, and otherwise get articles only if they already qualified for articles on other inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google search shows multiple articles profiling or highlighting Penalosa[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.103 (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoral candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just because local campaign coverage exists in the local media of the city where they're running for mayor — every candidate for any political office can always show some campaign coverage in their local media, so WP:NPOL would be inherently meaningless if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt candidates from it, because that would mean that no candidate was ever subject to NPOL at all anymore since campaign coverage never fails to exist. So no, the existence of campaign coverage does not make a candidate keepable in and of itself: what we would need to see is pre-candidacy coverage in the context of his work as an urbanist, the very thing people keep failing to show that he ever had. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penalosa meets the Basic Criteria under WP:NPOL having "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Bearcat's additional criteria above does not appear in the policy. While certain politicians are also "presumed to be notable" even if they don't meet the Basic Criteria,there is nothing in the policy that includes Bearcats exclusions or requires his conditions to be met or that states that there is a higher standard to be met above and beyond the Basic Criteria. Bearcat's statement is a personal opinion of what he believes to be notable rather than a statement of Wikipedia policy. 208.98.222.38 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expressing any personal opinions of any sort. Wikipedia has an established consensus around how notability is actually assessed when unelected candidates for political office are brought up for discussion, which is that run of the mill (which, note, contains a section specifically devoted to "political candidates") campaign coverage is not sufficient to establish the permanent notability of a candidate just for being a candidate — because every candidate in every election always has some degree of campaign coverage, our consensus that candidates are not all notable enough for articles would be meaningless if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, because no candidate in any election would ever fail to earn that exemption.
So unelected candidates aren't automatically notable enough just because campaign coverage exists, and are notable enough for inclusion only if they can be shown as some kind of special case — the notability of a candidate is established only if either (a) there's sufficient prior coverage to properly establish that he was already notable enough to keep a Wikipedia article independently of being a candidate for anything, or (b) the candidacy coverage nationalizes well beyond what's merely expected to exist, in such a way that even if he loses the election and never does another noteworthy thing for as long as he lives, his campaign itself would still pass the ten year test for enduring national or international significance anyway. We're not writing news here, and it isn't our job to maintain an article about every single person whose name happens to be present in the current news cycle — our job is to look past the current news cycle, and separate what's newsy from what's of enduring and permanent significance, and unelected candidacies very rarely meet the "enduring significance" test at all.
Not because I said so, either, but because thousands of past AFD discussions on unelected candidates established a consensus that that's how the notability of unelected candidates works.
Even NPOL #2 is not for candidates: it's for actual holders of offices at the local level, such as actual mayors and actual city councillors, who have sufficient analytical coverage of their work in office to establish a reason why it will still be of enduring significance 20 or 50 or 100 years after they die. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a single quote from policy. Please quote where the policy says any of what you are inferring above. 208.98.222.38 (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single word of what I said was incorrect at all, and Wikipedia does not have any rule that participants in AFD discussions have to directly "quote from" policy verbatim, and somehow aren't allowed to just summarize policies and guidelines and consensus in their own words. But at any rate, if you really insist on links, then WP:NPOL (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, WP:MILL (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, WP:10YT (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, and even WP:GNG isn't just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number": it tests the footnotes for the enduring significance of the context of what they're covering the person for, so hits that exist in non-notable contexts (like unelected candidacies for political office) don't count for a whole lot in terms of establishing permanent notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearcat is correct in how our community usually treats unsuccessful (or current) candidates for political office. There is nothing that suggests that the subject would meet WP:GNG outside the context of the election and there is no expectation that Wikipedia is a repository of campaign brochures or a complete collection of candidates for public office. I am ok with a delete and redirect to 2023 Toronto mayoral by-election. --Enos733 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is coverage of Penalosa's work as an urbanist before his first electoral campaign is ~~borderline~~ WP:GNG compliant. [9][10][11]. He has also been covered in multiple books on urbanism. [12][13][14] Combined with the coverage that he has received. In any case, if this is redirected, it should probably be to his brother, Enrique Peñalosa, under whom he held office beforehand, since he ran in both the 2018 and 2023 mayoral elections, coming second in the former, which he may not repeat in the latter. I'm going to try and flesh out the article in the next bit, ~~which might change my mind on this though~~. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After rewriting the article (WP:HEYMANN), I'm actually surprised at how much academic content there is on Penalosa, since going into this I thought a lot would be the typical puffery of political candidates. Many books have multiple pages on his work in Bogota, there's an entire chapter devoted to criticizing one of his biking theories, and many other urban design books mention him in shorter sections at sufficient detail to meet WP:BASIC. What currently stands is almost exclusively from sources before Penalosa first stood for election in 2022, with the ones post-candidacy mainly being used to flesh out the timeline before his candidacy. I have also not gone beyond what was already present in the article in terms of coverage for his two Toronto mayoral campaigns, which is unsurprisingly, quite in-depth (e.g. [15][16]). There are also quite a few scholarly articles, books, and other publications that look promising from Google search snippets for his name "Bogota" that I don't have access to, but should factor in per WP:NEXIST (e.g. [17][18][19][20][21][22]) I think this obviously fails WP:NPOL, but clearly meets WP:GNG, even without the Toronto mayoral stuff, and have struck parts of my above !vote accordingly.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: so that notability can be discussed in the light of the sources provided by Patar knight
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I still don't think he's notable other than being a guy that runs in the Toronto municipal elections. He's never been notable as an urban planner. The sources given are only local and related to him running for mayor. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Toronto is the largest city in Canada and as such during the upcoming mayoral race he will get significant media attention, not just local. This media attention will be greater than the previous race as well as during the previous race he placed second against the incumbent, this upcoming election is an open election which means he could be seen as a frontrunner which increases his notability. That is in addition to his academic works and time as parks commissioner. I acknowledge that should he go on to lose the upcoming mayoral election then he may not be notable enough for a page, however I think that this discussion should probably be had after the election and not now, as it would be premature to have the page deleted and undeleted in a few months should he win. Furthermore, although this is a less significant point, during the election campaign some may use the page as an information resource to learn more about the candidate running in the election, with that page being a useful information source for voters. Elijah B4 (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)— Elijah B4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections at the municipal level, not even in big cities. The inclusion tests are either (a) he wins the election, or (b) it can be shown that he had sufficient preexisting coverage in other contexts to be deemed notable for that reason regardless of whether he wins or loses the election, and "is a candidate" does not add up to permanent notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Patar knight has re-written the article with expanded sourcing, and has made a solid case that, although WP:NPOL is not passed, the subject passes WP:GNG separate from being a political candidate. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whether he be only a mayoral candidate or not, the references in the article clearly meet GNG - which completely overrides WP:NPOL. And really - looking at List of Toronto municipal elections#Popular Elections for Mayor and Council (since 1874), every second place mayoral candidate in the last 70 years has an article - and I suspect that the handful that don't in the previous 80 years, probably are notable, if someone was do the research - though this is really irrelevant with GNG being. Though it does raise the question of what User:Endrabcwizart and User:Bearcat are thinking with this nomination, given the significant national coverage (or heck international in this case) of major Toronto mayoral candidates; perhaps they can withdraw/edit their positions. Nfitz (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "passes GNG on the existence of campaign coverage per se". As I have pointed out to you more than once in the past, every candidate in every election always receives enough coverage that they could claim to pass GNG, and were therefore exempted from actually having to be measured against NPOL, if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took — which would mean that our entire established consensus that candidates are not notable enough for articles just for being candidates would be meaningless, because no candidate would ever be subject to it anymore. So campaign coverage falls under WP:MILL, and does not secure the permanent notability of an unelected candidate all by itself — candidates get into Wikipedia only if either (a) they also have some other, stronger claim of notability that got them into Wikipedia on those grounds, or (b) the campaign coverage demonstrates a reason why their candidacy is somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies.
And, in fact, the list you allude to doesn't actually demonstrate your position at all — it demonstrates mine, because all of the second-place candidates who do have articles have them because they passed criterion A: they have other notability claims in addition to a mayoral candidacy, such as actually having won a different mayoral election before or after the one they lost and thus actually having been mayor, or having been an MP or an MPP at another time in their career, and absolutely none of them have articles on "placed second in a mayoral election" grounds per se. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While there are policy driven rationales for keeping the article, there are also policy driven rationales for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion under the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing to keep, the deletion arguments also have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: after Patar knight's work. I think the sum total of the article's sources from a substantial period of time show subject passes GNG, even if individually they would be lacking. // Timothy :: talk 12:01, 1 April 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnampalli

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

Sources do not confirm that location is an independent village. The closest I could find to a location named Krishnampalli (or Krishnamballi) in Tamil Nadu on Google Maps was a bus stop in the alleged area. Kazamzam (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Krishnampalle for which there are sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 25 March 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. Per the SPI and CU results identified by Girth Summit here, this does not need to be prolonged. Consensus is clear from established editors. No objection to a subsequent redirect. That's an editorial decision. Star Mississippi 16:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woh Mera Dil Tha

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

Simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree. Redirected as an alternative to deletion, was undone by page creator. Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital or delete. Fails WP:GNG, insufficient notability for a standalone article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator, sources are primary from aired network and unreliable blogposts, nothing found in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- cites listed as references does cover the subject in-depth and provides detailed insight of the television drama satisfying WP:SIGCOV. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Pakistani sources, The News International, Oye Yeah and Review it are generally reliable and borderline sources and Woh Mera Dil Tha have 3 sources from the mentioned websites, not merely blogspots as indicated, leading the article to WP: Notability. Plus other sources from HIP In Pakistan and Trending in Social are adequate to add value to the article, covering all aspects of the serial. Lillyput4455 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as upon reviewing the links included as references, the subject does have significant coverage infact it covers each episode as references against the indication of the nominator and meets WP:SIGCOV. Sources also establish WP: Notability, as not a single source is a trash website. Therefore, it should stay. TheAnasKhan (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital per WP:ATD. Jasarat is the only reliable in-depth article but unfortunately that is a "blog article" - opinion piece. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : It does have sufficient sources to denote WP: Notability required for a TV show. 111.88.33.72 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient sources aren't the requirement here. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do worry about an IP whose third edit was to vote at this AfD (and whose first two edits were to another Pakistani TV article at AfD and its deletion discussion). Perhaps I shouldn't... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nominator - not seeing enough in depth coverage from independent sources. Ravensfire (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does have multiple sources covering characters and story of the show in-depth. It does meet WP:SIGCOV criteria. 111.88.44.11 (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, lookie! Another IP in the same Pakistani range diving into AfD within its first 3 edits! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already opened a suspected SPI case here. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This article was speedy deleted CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Nokrani

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

Article still in the draftspace and created again without any improvement, doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, source: 1: not working, 2: unreliable promotional blogpost, 3 and 4: interview of actress acted in drama - not enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Insight 3 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source no 1 which is not working as per nominator does cover the subject in-depth in a local language and is a reliable source. Other sources indicated also covers the subject fulfilling WP: Notability and WP:SIGCOV. TheAnasKhan (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep per nom, complies with WP:SIGCOV. 111.88.33.72 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Per nom..? I have suggested deleting it. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP @111.88.33.72 participating in AfDs of different Pakistani TV serials most probably a sock of an active account. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck some block evasion above. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:22, 30 March 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!} 07:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Khidmat-E-Khalq Foundation J&K

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

Searching in English and Urdu, I was unable to find any evidence that this subject meets WP:NORG. I'm also concerned about WP:COI as the creator has repeatedly tried to create an article on the chairman of this organisation as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I turned up nothing of significance in attempting to source. Fails Wikipedia:ORG. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 25 March 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 00:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brookhaven Instruments

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. BangJan1999 16:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, and New York. BangJan1999 16:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in sources as I looked for it. Mostly just namedropping or marketing/advert websites. That or database-like repositories for companies. Makes some cool stuff, but WP:INHERITORG applies even if some of those things are popular. KoA (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as above, none of the references I can locate meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. None provide in-depth info on the company. HighKing 18:14, 31 March 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!} 07:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern High School (Illinois)

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

Uncited since 2007. How is this school notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to show notability to be found; no good target for a redirect. 208.185.4.221 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My own search turned up some minor, routine coverage of sports events in local press, nothing that would meet Wikipedia:ORG or Wikipedia:GNG. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:54, 25 March 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 00:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vyasa Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School

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

Wikipedia guideline says ‘ Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.’ Chidgk1 (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:32, 25 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Bentley

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. Article is based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Malaysia, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we have now got to the very odd point where more biographies of ambassadors are currently proposed for deletion than any other human activity. While an ambassador can be non-notable, as noted at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence — articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved. The response to this should simply be to tag for better references. Moonraker (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the third party sources to establish notability? This is WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moonraker. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERX. Moonraker provided no sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @NoonIcarus:, what sources, policies and guidelines are you basing your vote on? // Timothy :: talk 12:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP fails GNG and BIO. Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
Government annoucement, not IS RS with SIGCOV	1. "Diplomatic appointments". Government of Canada. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
Twitter accounts don't show notability	2. ^ "Julia G. Bentley on Twitter".
Primary	3. ^ "Message from the High Commissioner". High Commission of Canada in Malaysia. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
Alumni source, not IS RS with SIGCOV	4. ^ "TFS Alumni". alumni.tfs.ca. Retrieved 2021-02-13.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

The keep votes didn't supply sources or arguments based in policy and guidelines, so the only response is an offer of cheese for the whine.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 12:24, 1 April 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!} 07:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Elliott (voice over)

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

Another "who?" British radio presenter/voice over resume article. No meaningful citations. No assertion of notability beyond "he has been on the radio". Promotional tone (the subject is apparently "in demand"). Flip Format (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable in the context of a global encyclopaedia, as opposed to a repository of minor Anglosphere trivia. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless he wrote for Pirates of the Caribbean, there is no coverage for this person. Delete for lack of coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches found a lot about a screen writer with the same name, but nothing about him. CT55555(talk) 19:31, 26 March 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!} 07:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gasser

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

Another "radio presenter resume" article - presenter has moved around various local and regional stations in the UK and now presents a single weekend show on a national radio station, which is not in and of itself notable. Citations are generally of the "this person exists" variety (e.g. his entry in a general register!) and/or passing mentions of the subject, and I can't find any more meaningful assertion of notability elsewhere. The only article about the subject is the Guardian piece, which is a review of a programme presented by him rather than about him per se. Capital Brighton (née Juice 107.2) is notable, Radio X is notable, this person is not. Flip Format (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the usual reasons: he simply isn't notable in the Wikipedia context. For a specialist Wiki, certainly. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches indicate he is not notable. CT55555(talk) 19:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Wielgosz

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The first source is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Little sign of notability, but sources exist, and in my experience most Canadian ambassadors do prove to be notable, when someone takes the time to dig out the sources. On LibStar's user page we can see a strange obsession with getting biographies of ambassadors deleted, but I am not seeing any involvement with this page, such as a challenge to add citations, or any sign of efforts to improve the page, or any of the others. They are all just drive-by Afds and are not the best way to deal with under-referenced articles. Moonraker (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. You can't just say keep without demonstration of sources. WP:ADHOM applies too. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cyprus, Greece, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for having a notesworthy career: she has been an ambassador in more than one country: in Venezuela, in Greece and in Cyprus. I also have to agree with Moonraker per WP:BEFORE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being an ambassador to more than 1 country is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NPOL, [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable, and this person has quite simply held national office in her role as ambassador. She has also served as second vice-chair of the Organization of American States, meaning that she has held international office in addition to being an ambassador. Her OAS experience actually predates her appointment to the role of ambassador of Venezuela, and her meeting WP:NPOL is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability, many ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: What are you looking for to help make evaluating consensus here more clear? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly, sources proving notability. At the moment, the !keep votes are weak, in my opinion, because Moonraker asserts in general terms that usually Canadian ambassadors prove notable and that sources must exist, although he does not provide any, NoonIcarus basically argues that ambassadors are inherently notable and, again, he doesn't provide any sources showing notability and the same basically goes for your keep !vote. Nobody has proved why Ms Wielgosz is notable, resorting instead to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:ASSERTN, which is why I (and I presume, User:Northamerica1000) relisted the discussion. —

Salvio giuliano

06:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Salvio LibStar (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage by WP:RS sufficiently demonstrate notability satisfying WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Furthermore, a Canadian ambassador would be considered a notable subject per relevant guidelines (specifically, GNG), and the subject appears to have a notable career. While sourcing in the article may be weak, a drive-by AfD nomination is not an appropriate way to address it. What this ultimately comes down to is whether or not the subject has WP:NOTABILITY that would warrant inclusion as an article. Clearly, the subject is notable. Deletion could be considered if the subject didn’t have a claim to notability due to absence of coverage, however, WP:GNG is met by the subject and as such deletion is not the appropriate outcome for the article. If WP:GNG weren’t met by the totality of the subject and the subject’s career, the article could be considered a valid candidate for deletion. On the other hand, however, I find that the subject’s claim to notability is strong enough to pass the threshold for inclusion in the form of a standalone article, due to the appropriate GNG conditions being satisfied. The argument for deletion just isn’t very strong here in the face of the subject’s overall demonstrated WP:NOTABILITY, and the rationale for keeping is thus stronger on its merits. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kicko & Super Speedo

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

The article is not notable, it only has four refs, one of which appears to be dead, of the other three they all seem to be press releases, and the show is only the main subject of one of those Googleguy007 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles cited as references seem to be staff-written pieces rather than press releases. I fixed the dead link. I also found listings for the program on an Indonesian site, indicating that the show has an international audience (or at least an Indonesian one in addition to its main Indian audience. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. appears to be notable based on Eastmain's findings.Pershkoviski (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:18, 25 March 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. It is important to remember that consensus is not a vote. With that in mind, I find that the strength and basis in policy for keep rationales is significantly stronger than that for deletion. In order to arrive at this conclusion, I carefully considered the content and weight of each argument, ensuring that everyone’s opinion is accounted for. At the end of this process, I conclude that there is a consensus to keep. The consensus is based on a careful consideration of the strength and grounding of each argument in policy as opposed to rationales which do not follow from established guidelines. Taking all of this into account, I see a consensus to keep the page. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of call centre companies

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

The list exists to let some companies avoid orphaning (at least one of them is an ongoing AfD). And we already have Category:Call centre companies for any other purpose. Suitskvarts (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bare list with no proof of completeness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgfleischmann (talk • contribs)
No completeness in your statement since you forgot to sign it. Completeness is not a requirement for an article to exist. Dream Focus 00:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It remains a list of call center companies with articles in Wikipedia, imho a bit missleading Kgfleischmann (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is that misleading? Have you never seen a list article before? Any list only list entries that are notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have their own articles. Dream Focus 15:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You shouldn't delete a list because you prefer categories. There is a rule against that. Everything on the list links to its own article. Dream Focus 00:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I have edited the article to have a table. This allows for far more information than a category would have, thus more useful for those wishing to find something. Valid navigational list and a valid information list as well. Dream Focus 00:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem as long as the entries point to an article (and the article asserts their notability). That is standard, and we have lots and lots of lists like that. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets CLN/AOAL // Timothy :: talk 13:29, 1 April 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Richardson

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SPORTSPERSON and doesn't appear at a quick google search to have WP:SIGCOV. Patr2016 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Didn't find any during a search and none has been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By failing WP:SPORTSPERSON, the subject has insufficient notability to warrant having an article per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG. There is also a lack of WP:SIGCOV by independent WP:RS. Per WP:GNG, the subject doesn’t meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria for inclusion as a stand alone article by failing WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:SIGCOV. The lack of coverage by reliable independent sources further demonstrates that the subject is not sufficiently notable. A thorough search reveals no significant coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON. To further support the argument for deletion, I will also note that the subject doesn’t meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 02:40, 1 April 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregson Hazell

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; online coverage is routine/trivial stuff like match reports and statistical database entries. Jogurney (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The degree of online coverage of the subject is WP:ROUTINE and WP:TRIVIAL, falling short of satisfying WP:GNG requirements. While there is some coverage of the subject, it does not amount to WP:SIGCOV and is WP:ROUTINE in nature. Overall, these point to a lack of subject WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Keeping the article would be justified if the subject had independent WP:SIGCOV (i.e. above and beyond WP:TRIVIAL) thus meeting WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG standards. However, the nature of existing coverage of the subject is WP:ROUTINE in nature, failing WP:SIGCOV standards that would be necessary to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Reliable source coverage would need to amount to WP:SIGCOV in order to establish subject notability, and at this point I see no evidence of that. The only sources I found amounted to WP:TRIVIAL and WP:ROUTINE. Since the coverage is only routine and trivial, the significant coverage threshold needed to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY standards is not met. Keeping the article would require meeting WP:GNG requirements in the form of WP:SIGCOV, which is simply not the case here. Of course, all of this is without mentioning that the subject also fails WP:NATHLETE as well. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 17:00, 1 April 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cellulant

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kenya. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. information accurate 105.163.2.120 (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find enough in-depth coverage to show this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own research into the subject doesn’t find any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:NORG, WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NORG. Since they don’t, however, the strongest case to made here is the one for deletion. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 22:59, 1 April 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Kyriopoulos

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

Was draftified once, and recreated in mainspace. The only option left is AfD. WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. And this article does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, KatoKungLee has added many sources to the article page. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman and @ Onel5969 - His name is in a different language, so you won't find a lot without searching in Greek. Once you start to search in Greek, there's several articles where he is the focus:

- https://www.panathinaikos-cosmos.com/569184/poios-einai-o-18chronos-giorgos-kyriopoylos-poy-ekane/

- https://www.dimokratiki.gr/17-12-2022/giorgos-kyriopoylos-kalos-mathitis-doyleytaras-kai-protathlitis/

- https://www.gazzetta.gr/football/superleague/2179554/giorgos-kyriopoylos-kalos-mathitis-doyleyteras-kai-protathlitis-vid

- https://www.trifilara.gr/prasinos-os-to-2024-o-kyriopoulos/

- https://www.onsports.gr/podosfairo/story/806901/panathinaikos-volos-zesto-xeirokrotima-sto-ntempoyto-toy-kyriopoyloy-video

- https://talentabout.gr/2022/04/charoumenos-o-kyriopoulos-gia-to-protathlima-vid/

- https://www.bnsports.gr/face-to-face/articles/633027/o-giorgos-kyriopoulos-sto-bn-sports-to-100-gia-tin-protia-stin-elite-round

- https://www.vimapoliti.gr/athlitika/item/5852-dempoyto-kai-apotheosi-tou-18xronou-giorgou-kyriopoulou-apo-tous-filathlous-tou-pao

- https://www.sportime.gr/podosfairo/panathinaikos-aftos-itan-o-pektis-pou-trelane-ton-giovanovits-sto-youth-league/. Here's how I searched it: https://www.google.com/search?q=Γεώργιος Κυριόπουλος&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjig63Nn_r9AhU8F1kFHbPnA4c4FBDSlAl6BAgGEAI&biw=1920&bih=961&dpr=1#ip=1. Thanks.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify A case of WP:TOOSOON. Of the above sources, [23][24] and [25] are a retelling of gazzetta.gr article, [26] is an announcement from his club, [27] is a short non-significant story about him making his debut on 84th minute of a match, [28] is a short story with a video interview with him, [29] is an interview with him following a U-19 match. That leaves us with the above gazzetta.gr article and this article written less than two months later which fails WP:SUSTAINED. Draftify would be my first choice but I would also support delete. Alvaldi (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, per source analysis by Alvaldi. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, KatoKungLee found many sources (see above). Besides those, I found 10, 11, 12, and 13, among many more Greek sources. Young player with ongoing career with Panathinaikos, one of the most successful teams in the fully pro Greek top flight, which generates a lot of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz [30] is an interview with his mother, [31] is a copy of this which was already posted above. [32] is an interview which trivially mentions him in the prose and [33] is a video interview with three players, including him. Interviews with the subject and his relatives are obviously not independent of the subject and trivial mentions are not significant coverage, so why do you keep posting these subpar sources in AfD's? Alvaldi (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there does not appear to be enough significant coverage, just lots of minor pieces about a prospective talent. Giant Snowman 21:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, Sources like [34], [35], and [36] are certainly not "minor pieces", and he has already played in the fully pro Greek second tier. Young player with ongoing career with Panathinaikos, one of the most successful teams in the fully pro Greek top flight, which generates a lot of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzetta is a group fanblog network -- the author is listed as one of the bloggers for Stoiximan Superleague. The BNSports piece is pure Q&A, why did you link it at all? The Sportime article has barely three sentences on the subject's youth stats and the venue doesn't have any info on its journalistic practices so it's not clear if it's even RS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP that fails GNG and BIO.

Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
database record	1. Kulig, Jacek (2023), GEORGIOS KYRIOPOULOS [GEORGIOS KYRIOPOULOS], Football TalentScout, retrieved 13 March 2023
database record	2. ^ Georgios Kyriopoulos at Soccerway
Promotional, published by multiple sources (see below)	3. ^ Stoumbis, Dimitris (2022), Γιώργος Κυριόπουλος: Καλός μαθητής, δουλευταράς και πρωταθλητής [Giorgos Kyriopoulos: Good student, hard worker and champion] (in Greek), Greece: Dimokratiki.gr, retrieved 13 March 2023
Duplicate of promo article above	4. ^ Mantaios, George (2022), Γιώργος Κυριόπουλος: Καλός μαθητής, δουλευτεράς και πρωταθλητής (vid) [George Kyriopoulos: Good student, hard worker and champion (vid)] (in Greek), Greece: Gazzettai.gr, retrieved 13 March 2023
Two sentence promo concludes with "We congratulate him and wish him health and success with the club."	5. ^ “ΠΡΑΣΙΝΟΣ” ΩΣ ΤΟ 2024 Ο ΚΥΡΙΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ ["GREEN" UNTIL 2024 KYRIOPOULOS] (in Greek), Greece: Trifilara.gr, 2021, retrieved 13 March 2023
Two sentence promo article with mention. Not SIGCOV	6. ^ Παναθηναϊκός-Βόλος: Ζεστό χειροκρότημα στο ντεμπούτο του Κυριόπουλου (video) [Panathinaikos-Volos: Warm applause at the debut of Kyriopoulos (video)] (in Greek), Greece: OnSports, 2022, retrieved 13 March 2023
Duplicate of promo article above	7. ^ Χαρούμενος ο Κυριόπουλος για το πρωτάθλημα! (vid) [Panathinaikos-Volos: Warm applause at the debut of Kyriopoulos (video)] (in Greek), Greece: Talentabout.gr, 2022, retrieved 13 March 2023
Three sentence promo article with mention. Not SIGCOV	8. ^ Παναθηναϊκός: Αυτός ήταν ο παίκτης που τρέλανε τον Γιοβάνοβιτς στο Youth League [Panathinaikos: This was the player who drove Jovanovic crazy in the Youth League] (in Greek), Greece: Sportime.gr, 2023, retrieved 13 March 2023
Interview, primary	9. ^ Ο Γιώργος Κυριόπουλος στο BN Sports: «Το 100% για την πρωτιά στην Elite Round» [Giorgos Kyriopoulos in BN Sports: "100% for the first place in the Elite Round"], BN Sports, 2023, retrieved 13 March 2023
List of players, includes name, but nothing more. Mention in a list is not SIGCOV	10. ^ Παναθηναϊκός: Υπέγραψε εννέα επαγγελματικά συμβόλαια [Panathinaikos: Signed nine professional contracts], Fos Online, 2021, retrieved 13 March 2023
Routine article, promo about subject and game they played in	11. ^ Ντεμπούτο και αποθέωση του 18χρονου Γιώργου Κυριόπουλου απο τους φιλάθλους του ΠΑΟ [Debut and deification of 18-year-old Giorgos Kyriopoulos by PAO fans], Vima Politi, 2022, retrieved 13 March 2023

Sources above are more of the same promo, primary, routine and database. Nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Drafting has been rejected already so even if it is TOOSOON, that is not an option.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 01:23, 2 April 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jadiel Chance

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Vincentian has an article about him but it's little more than just a quote from him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 1 April 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hein Zeyar Lin

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

Non-notable footy player. Sources cited don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better. Previously draftified (more than once) but the creator insists on publishing this, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and time to consider an article creation block given their unfamiliarity with notability standards.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. International players tend to get more coverage, but I can't see any. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; the online coverage is routine/trivial. Jogurney (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The degree of online coverage of the subject is WP:ROUTINE and WP:TRIVIAL, falling short of satisfying WP:GNG requirements. While there is some coverage of the subject, it does not amount to WP:SIGCOV and is WP:ROUTINE in nature. Overall, these point to a lack of subject WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Keeping the article would be justified if the subject had independent WP:SIGCOV (i.e. above and beyond WP:TRIVIAL) thus meeting WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG standards. However, the nature of existing coverage of the subject is WP:ROUTINE in nature, failing WP:SIGCOV standards that would be necessary to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Reliable source coverage would need to amount to WP:SIGCOV in order to establish subject notability, and at this point I see no evidence of that. The only sources I found amounted to WP:TRIVIAL and WP:ROUTINE. Since the coverage is only routine and trivial, the significant coverage threshold needed to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY standards is not met. Keeping the article would require meeting WP:GNG requirements in the form of WP:SIGCOV, which is simply not the case here. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 03:00, 1 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter Science College

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

Not seeing enough to meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. The coverage in Ommcom News is trivial. The rest is just database coverage like Justdial or poorly-written user-generated content like Angazetu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. Note this article is about the Science college, which appears to be a small local 2yr secondary school (described as a higher secondary school), not the other Jupiter schools in the Gita Group of Institutions. BEFORE showed promo, listings, and ROUTINE news about a location change. This appears to be a perfectly normal school, nothing that makes it an encyclopedic topic. If someone places IS RS with SIGCOV in the article, let me know and I will check. // Timothy :: talk 03:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aliando Syarief

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Only one reference in a non-English article about another celebrity. Has been tagged for lack of references for a BLP since 2015. Davidelit (Talk) 14:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has won numerous SCTV awards per the chart; the awards look notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO, Awards section referenced now but still needs to update. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the awards and meeting WP:ANYBIO.Pershkoviski (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ultimately, the sourcing does satisfy WP:NOTABILITY requirements. If it wasn’t for this, I would say delete. However, the subject has demonstrable notability as demonstrated by WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS. What this ultimately comes down to is whether or not the subject is notable, such that if the subject isn’t notable then the article should be deleted, whereas if the subject is notable then the article should be kept. What I see in the article and looking into the background on my own, is that the subject is indeed notable. The most important question to answer is whether or not the sources establish notability. There is a clear case to be made that the sources do establish notability. As such, the appropriate outcome is to keep the article. WP:ANYBIO is also met. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 03:02, 1 April 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 MAAC women's basketball tournament

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

Another contested prod. Zero independent coverage, a single source from the tournament itself. Redirecting or draftifying is no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked into this and the sourcing is a massive problem for this situation. The reasons are that there's a men's tournament going on at the same time with some of the same universities playing each other, there's one or two sites that had paywalls, some of the teams in this just played each other recently and there's a general lack of coverage of women's basketball due to people not caring about it. I feel like this can be sourced and improved, but the research here is like maneuvering around a mine field. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this subject in detail, but those should be surmountable problems. You can avoid results about the men's tournament by adjusting your keywords. (For example, if you know the name of a specific coach or player on the women's teams, that could help narrow the results.) And paywalled articles are still fair game; you may be able to access them from a library. Zagalejo (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not entirely sure what demonstrates notability with this specific case, but there are many accounts of the tournament on involved universities' websites, along with several local news articles talking about how local teams did in the tournament. Here's three of those. [37] [38] [39] Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lack of WP:BEFORE, as mentioned, there's plenty of other sources here with a cursory Google News search. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzzy510 What would you say were the WP:THREE best significant sources about the 2023 tournament that you found? Alvaldi (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May end up gaining significant coverage from secondary sources in the future. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is subject matter that we can assume will pass statutorily. I.e., we could have a rule that DI conference tournaments pass due to the WP:LOCAL coverage many teams get regarding their participation. As is shown above, this article passes by that manner.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is WP:SIGCOV by multiple independent secondary WP:RS establishing the subject’s notability and satisfying WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 03:06, 1 April 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gender power gap

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

Another contested redirect. As per WP:NOTESSAY, noted by both myself and Fiachra10003. Was originally redirected by Galobtter, but reverted. As per recent discussions at ANI, only alternative now is AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay with some OR. Could perhaps rewrite, but I'm not sure what we'd call it or where you'd redirect it. Pay equity maybe? Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Gender gap disambig page? Joyous! Noise! 15:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that might work. Oaktree b (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as written, largely overlaps with Gender representation on corporate boards of directors. Perhaps better to redirect there. That said, the subject of the article likely meets WP:NOTABILITY even if the current content needs WP:TNT Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded OR fork that dups existing articles. No objection to DAB after delete, if there is a consensus. // Timothy :: talk 01:25, 2 April 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 76th British Academy Film Awards. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Bassett did the thing

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

This appears to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS, there little likelihood of any sustained coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film awards article. Briefly mentioning it there should be sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's one line from a performance, with probably no lasting significance. Joyous! Noise! 15:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Have thought about nominating this at AfD myself. Natg 19 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oaktree as an alternative to deletion. The target article would not be particularly long, so a sentence or two on the impact of a performance that is already mentioned in the article would be fine. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's very rare for individual quotes from songs to be notable. Category:Quotations from music is mostly redirects. This does not nearly rise to the level of notable quote, and fails WP:NOTNEWS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oaktree. The quote in and of itself is not notable. PopoDameron ⁠talk 00:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it be possible to retool the article to focus on the song and the performance as a whole rather than just the individual line? I present this as an alternative to delete or merging. I only ask because the rap did get substantial coverage in third-party, reliable sources so I would think that passes WP:GNG in that regard. As for whether or not there will be sustained coverage, no one can say for certain either way. I could see it getting renewed coverage during the next BAFTAs for instance. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do this. Wasn't sure what to name the article without it being wordy so I just left it as "Angela Bassett did the thing" because it was the most famous line from the performance. Won't move the article to a new name because it's currently under AfD (obviously) but will have a play around. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I just wanted to present it as an alternative since again, I have seen this topic get coverage, and in my opinion, it is impossible to say either way if it will get sustain coverage. I think the focus should be on the coverage that exists. If it I had to come up with a title, I'd probably do some version of Ariana DeBose's BAFTAs rap as that seems to be what most of the coverage uses in some format or another. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oaktree and others above. Mentioning the quote at the proposed target seems fine. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:02, 2 April 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five Oceans

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

Another contested redirect. Due to recent discussions at ANI, AfD is the only option left. Current sourcing has a total of zero in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lengthy Deadline Hollywood article cited in the body is essentially about the launch of the company and its first production. Per WP:GNG, "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Can't see what makes this article any different from 87North Productions, The Film Arcade or even Apatow Productions, for instance, where one of the three key references is a Tumblr page. Anthony Whitaker (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see how this recent startup meets WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for PROMO. I only get hits for the Oceans Eleven film and those that came after. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject just doesn’t pass WP:GNG. If WP:GNG were satisfied, there would be a case against deleting. However, there is no evidence that the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY requirements that would warrant having an article. If there was evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, then having an article could be considered. However, the subject isn’t notable as I have outlined, and therefore the article should be deleted. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promo, doesn't pass GNG or BIO. Might be TOOSOON, but Draft isn't an viable option. // Timothy :: talk 01:30, 2 April 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoor Ahsan

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

Contested drafitification. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, Engineering, Oklahoma, and Texas. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sourcing is about projects his firm is involved in (many of which do not even name him) or otherwise trivial, namedrops, etc. This is less a biography and more of a PR-style resume. There is no substantive information upon which to build a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom fails WP:GNG.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:53, 27 March 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) Enos733 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Worrell

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Would have restored the redirect, but that was contested, and due to discussions at ANI, that is no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's been often held at AfD that city councilmen of cities of the size and international scope of Boston do indeed meet NPOL. Obviously the article needs better sourcing, but with over 270 G News hits [40], I've a hard time imagining that there aren't at least a couple providing significant coverage to the subject; what measures did the nom take for assurance that there aren't any? Also, would the nom care to link to any ANI discussion referencing this article? Ravenswing 16:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I improved the article some, but it needs more work. Despite that, as it stands now, notability is shown with the existing sources. Therefore, it meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The individual and the sources show notability. All other existing members of the Boston City Council have existing Wikipedia pages. Therefore, this individual is no different. FranDoe16 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my own review, I find that the article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL and via WP:SIGCOV in independent secondary WP:RS. The coverage of the subject is beyond WP:ROUTINE and meets the significant threshold to sufficiently indicate WP:NOTABILITY via SIGCOV criteria. Furthermore, notability is demonstrated in satisfying WP:NPOL with sufficient notability through GNG. NPOL is also met by the subject, since the degree of coverage by reliable independent secondary sources exceeds WP:ROUTINE. An article on a non-notable subject would be eligible for deletion under GNG requirements, however, this subject passes WP:NPOL to sufficiently demonstrate notability according to WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, I find that GNG and NPOL are satisfied as well, as demonstrated by the in depth reliable secondary source coverage of the subject. I would be more inclined to suggest deletion if the subject didn’t have demonstrable notability via lack of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV or failing WP:GNG or NPOL. Since these criteria are met, though, I see a strong policy-based rationale for inclusion. Deletion could be considered if NPOL wasn’t met (which would also weaken the GNG case), but in this case the relevant notability guidelines are passed and the article should not be eligible for deletion. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 16:53, 1 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Chinese Figure Skating Championships

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

Wholly unsourced, would have restored redirect, however, due to recent discussions at ANI, that is no longer an option. Fails WP:GNG currently. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to edits by some other users, the 2022 championships was redirected to the 2023 page; where it returns automatically to the main page Chinese Figure Skating Championships, thus causing confusions. It should be kept Sharontse121 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON, but likely will be notable once the championships start. Jumpytoo Talk 03:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. If it was in a week or two I could understand, but it's 9 months away.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON, it is 9 months away. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Straightforward WP:TOOSOON. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was made in February and edited heavily in March, but the event itself is set for December. Clearly an obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. It's either that or relegate it into a draft. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying would be more appropriate if there were substantial information in the article itself that would be lost by deletion. In this case, the article is nearly empty. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 17:58, 1 April 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makran district

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

Contested redirect - nothing in article to show it meets WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Would have restored the redirect, but that is no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don’t find any sources to support this so suggest redirecting to Makran. Mccapra (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Multiple references to Makran District in search in Newspaper Archive.com. Defined in this book in connection with British administration (page 68) [41] and here on Makran state being redesignated a district on its secession to Pakistan [42] Rupples (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NGEO. NGEO states clearly, "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it."

Maybe redirecting to Makran would work, but someone can always create a redirect after delete. // Timothy :: talk 02:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the unsourced material per BURDEN. The one source in the article was a 404 page. I'm not sure anything in the article is correct, I think this was just an informal name used for an area caught up in ethnic cleansing and population transfers. Unless someone can come up with IS RS showing this meets GNG, it should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timothy. Clearly fails GNG and NGEO. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 2 April 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Copeland

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

Nothing but routine sports coverage. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have plenty of significant sources on him from his college career, including these from the The Athletic, The Baltimore Sun and The News-Press. I've added these and others to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A feature article in The Athletic is not routine, and neither are the Baltimore Sun and Gainesville Sun pieces Alvadi added. Hatman31 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above sources. Projected to be a 2023 NFL Draft pick too. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources pass WP:GNG, are WP:NOTROUTINE, and subject has shown WP:IMPACT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see at least three significant, independent, reliable sources meeting Wikipedia:GNG Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG due to having multiple articles dedicated to him.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Clearly passes GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my own review, I find that the article subject meets WP:GNG, WP:NATHLETE, and WP:NCOLLATH via WP:SIGCOV in independent secondary WP:RS. The coverage of the subject is beyond WP:ROUTINE and meets the significant threshold to sufficiently indicate WP:NOTABILITY via SIGCOV criteria. Furthermore, notability is demonstrated in satisfying WP:NCOLLATH with sufficient notability through GNG. WP:NATHLETE is also met by subject, since the degree of coverage by reliable independent secondary sources exceeds WP:ROUTINE. An article on a non-notable subject would be eligible for deletion under GNG requirements, however, this subject passes WP:NATHLETE to sufficiently demonstrate notability according to WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, I find that GNG and NCOLLATH are satisfied as well, as demonstrated by the in depth reliable secondary source coverage of the subject which additionally shows WP:IMPACT. I would be more inclined to suggest deletion if the subject didn’t have demonstrable notability via lack of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV or failing WP:GNG or NATHLETE. Since these criteria are met, though, I see a strong policy-based rationale for inclusion. Deletion could be considered if NCOLLATH wasn’t met (which would also weaken the GNG case), but in this case the relevant notability guidelines are passed and the article should not be eligible for deletion. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 04:08, 1 April 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kole Cottam

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

Was a redirect to a minor league list, but was split off when he was released. Fails WP:GNG, nothing more than routine sports coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Boston Red Sox minor league players#Kole Cottam per page history. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? He is not in the Red Sox minor league system anymore so that would be inappropriate. Spanneraol (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case of contextual oversight on my part; mea culpa. That said, rescinding my earlier decision and switching to Weak delete. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable minor league ballplayer who is currently in the indy leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has a couple of articles where he is the main focus, so that helps him pass WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Few dedicated local newspaper articles may just barely pass WP:GNG. Skipple ☎ 23:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a notable player. He also has articles about him.

Batgirl-Awsomeness (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the refs from his professional career appear to be routine transactional announcements or from fan blogs focused on the Red Sox. There is some coverage from his college career but I don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP which fails GNG and BIO. Sources are nothing more than ROUTINE news, mentions in lists of players, database stats, "Stats, Fantasy & News" sources, and promo. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 02:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sadly not enough coverage to pass GNG. Without prejudice to possibly recreating if the player becomes more notable. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW close; per WP:NPOL; overwhelming community consensus that politicians elected to national parliaments are presumed notable. In this case, Jacob served two terms in the Assemblée nationale from 1978 to 1981 and from 1986 to 1988. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Jacob

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

Non-notable winemaker and mayor of his village. The only source is the necrologue. French wiki and gNews add nothing worth. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and France. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This may be one of the worst WP:BEFORE searches I've seen.The fr.wiki article literally has a link to his parliamentary profile. Also, do you really expect a politician who was last active in the 1980's and who has a very common name to simply pop up in a GNews? In such cases, you have to add more parameter to your search and look through either GSearch or GBooks. Subject passes WP:NPOL as a French MP. Curbon7 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Jovanović (footballer, born 1976)

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

WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. Redirect was contested, so due to recent discussions at ANI, AfD is the only option. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anyone who might think of trying to source this, do note that Goran's name is extremely common and there's at least 3 other players with the same name on this site. Do not try to search under the Serbian name listed - Горан Јовановић. You will not find anything and unless I'm doing this wrong, which is possible, and my guess is that the name may be wrong. I don't really expect him to be able to stay due to him being a pre-internet era player and due to his career not being super notable, but who knows.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:39, 26 March 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 Zhu Shizhen#Family tree. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Zhu Shizhen

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

Was redirect to Zhu Shizhen#Family tree, where this could be included, there is not enough in-depth coverage of this family tree to support a standalone article. Would have restored the redirect, but since it was contested, recent discussions at ANI have that no longer being an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and China. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per mom unless sufficient sources are found in Chinese to support a stand-alone article. Mccapra (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really, son? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

our secret is out…Mccapra (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, but I don't think AfD should be use to request redirecting. A talk page discussion would be enough, IMO. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable but there is a very lengthy thread at ANI suggesting otherwise. Mccapra (talk) 20:40, 28 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

José Alberto Rivera

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

Was a redirect to a minor league list, but was split off when he was released. Fails WP:GNG, nothing more than routine sports coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but WP:PROD would have been preferable, in case he does become notable in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 1 April 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 List of supporting Harry Potter characters#Gellert Grindelwald. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gellert Grindelwald

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero real-world notability has been established. Delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Was a redirect to List of supporting Harry Potter characters#Gellert Grindelwald. The current sourcing has zero in-depth coverage of the character. The character development section has 3 refs, 1 of which does not mention the character, the other 2 are very brief mentions. The critical response is all about the actor's portrayal, not the character. Would have restored redirect, but recent discussions at ANI leave no choice but to send this to AfD, since the redirect was challenged. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As it was before, so it should be again. Wikipedia is not a fandom wiki. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Unless WP:GNG can be proven, this should be a redirect to a list. Right now, the article does not show standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Why this needed 2nd nomination is beyond me. GNG fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support keeping the old redirect, with the categories intact. It does appear that Grindelwald is properly covered on the article about supporting Harry Potter characters. As a redirect for this character already exists, I support deleting this article. RedSorcery16 (talk) 01:55, 29 March 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!} 07:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Business Administration

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

Privately-owned business, unable to find any coverage satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH and doesn't seem to even meet WP:GNG either. Affiliated with two other universities but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Best sources I can find are user-generated database pages like Education Today and Educrib. I can't find any news coverage about this private institution. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, Education, Schools, and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 09:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see directories and guidebooks, and Moth’un that would make this pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have said above, there are listings, etc., but neither for "Academy of Business Administration" nor "ABA Balasore" am I finding the substantial 3rd party coverage needed to demonstrate RP|notability. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 25 March 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bayu Aji

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage over a over a sufficiently significant period of time. Of the sources in the article, [43] is a trivial mention, [44] is trivial with two short quotes from his coach, [45] is an english translation of #2, [46] from 16/03/2023 discusses his debut but cutting out the primary qoutes and his feelings, we're left with that he played 20 minutes, [47] covers the same debut, [48] is a routine transfer story from January 2023. I was unable to find any better sources during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 28 March 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 K. Viswanath#Filmography. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient quality. However no case made not to redirect. Star Mississippi 12:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subhodhayam

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

Currently, there is not a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable secondary source. Even the Rotten Tomatoes site has zero reviews (and I've actually never seen that before). At least one of the sources, this one, doesn't even mention the film. Was draftified, but returned to mainspace immediately, without any additional in-depth sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to K. Viswanath who is the director and writer. Not enough information to make an independent film article. Sources provided only show that the film existed and who played in it. Viswanath's article doesn't even indicate it was a significant work. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retain The article (Satisfies Notability guidelines). Following are independent sources included in the article, in addition the article also contains published news paper sources highlighting about the film which was also remade in Hindi. The article is not based on rotten tomatoes and imdb. They are just supporting sources.

Notability is well established in the article Fostera12 (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These only show the film exists, not that it is notable. These are equivalent to IMDb, especially Moviebuff, Filmiclub, MovieGQ. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. The film is discussed in scholarly sources and in retrospectives of K. Viswanath's career. It is a notable film. Reviews would be available in Telugu dailies of the time like Andhra Patrika and Andhra Jyothi whose archives may not have been digitized. Reo kwon (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the above 4 sources include a brief mention, and three db entries, with no in-depth coverage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided are not adequate for notability. Coverage needs to be in-depth. I found nothing in a search. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Retain~~ - added new sources
https://www.4to40.com/poems-for-kids/poems-in-hindi/mal-de-gulal-mohe-ayi-holi-ayi-re-indeevar/
https://indiancine.ma/VGS/info Fostera12 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which is in-depth about the film. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Independent sources Retain
4to40 site above link is indepth about the film as it is clearly mentioning as original to Kamchor
Subhodayam screening (kanakamahal theater, Nellore, 1980, Nov) in Zaminryot telugu newsarchive, pg 10 - http://www.zaminryot.com/pdf/1980/Nov/7-nov-1980.pdf
Theatrical release poster - http://telugucineblitz.blogspot.com/2012/06/subhodayam-1980.html

Most importantly this scholarly article is clearly an independent source highlighting about the film - https://intellectdiscover.com/content/journals/10.1386/dmas.1.3.413_1 is found from google scholar article links provided by Wikipedia. Suggest to help retain this article, without putting emphasis on somebody's personal bias and competition. Fostera12 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fostera12: I couldn't find the date and review in Zaminryot — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for your input, I have updated my comment, but the source zaminryot is reliable, and independent. so you would want to retain the article ? Fostera12 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ three editors (including me) would want to retain the article considering enough sources (in addition to 3 independent sources) which establishes the notability of the film.Fostera12 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources don't establish notability, significant coverage does, of which there isn't close to enough sourcing to satisfy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep: In addition to this Latha Srinivasan from India today cites~~ "While Siri Siri Muvva (1976) showed his understanding of the craft, it was Sankarabharam (1980) that proved his mastery over it. In fact, many of director K Viswanath’s films were far ahead of their time. K Viswanath started to actively explore human relationships and social issues, and each of his films struck a chord with the audience. If he spoke about untouchability in Saptapadi, then he highlighted the respectability manual labour deserved in Subhodayam and Swayamkrushi". (https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/k-viswanath-passes-away-92-why-the-filmmaker-par-excellence-was-a-guru-and-legend-in-indian-cinema-2329928-2023-02-03). This clearly highlights Subhodayam as one of K. Viswanath's most notable social films. Note: Please read all the sources carefully, dont just blindly say not notable just for arguments sake. I do not have any personal interest in this. This is commonsense. It is okay if independent sources lack review of the film in this case. The article is extremely well sourced over all.

- Time of India cites

"Bollywood Calling - The 1976 film Siri Siri Muvva changed the way the audience viewed his work, with his films becoming more artistic since then. He remade it in Hindi in 1979 as Sargam". The 1982 film Kaamchor was a remake of Subhodayam

- SB Vijaya Mary of The Hindu cites

"He followed it up with more remakes of his Telugu hits Saptapadi with Sridevi and Mithun Chakraborty as Jaag Utha Insaan, Shubodayam with Rakesh Roshan and Jayaprada as Kaamchor, Swati Mutyam as Eshwar with Anil Kapoor and Vijayashanti, Jeevana Jyothi as Sanjog with Jeetendra and Jayaprada, Subhalekha as Sangeeth with Rakesh Roshan and Rati Agnihotri, and many more". (https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/k-viswanath-who-passed-away-on-the-43rd-anniversary-of-his-iconic-film-sankarabharanam-broke-star-stereotypes-in-his-films/article66466706.ece) This clearly highlights Subhodayam as one of K. Viswanath's hit films In addition, this is clearly significant coverage of the film and article is significantly improved Fostera12 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cf WP:NF

The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.

Which is the case here.— MY, OH, MY! 18:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

Majority of the editors would keep and retain the article. Kindly do the needful and close the discussion asap, so that I can focus on improving the other aspects of the article.Fostera12 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fostera12, you can only cast one "vote" and you have already voted 3 or 4 times. Plus, AFD discussions last at least one week so this discussion won't be closed for a few more days (if it's not relisted for another week). Have patience and please do not bludgeon this discussion. I think you have made enough comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay got it. My intention is not bludgeon. I do not know that I can caste one "vote" Fostera12 (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In most retrospectives of K. Viswanath's career, the film is discussed or mentioned. Here are some from major Telugu media outlets that mentioned the film or its themes: 10TV, TV9, Eenadu, NTV, News18. Reo kwon (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Fostera12 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 08:49, 25 March 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Hai Chota Sa

AfDs for this article:

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

Following on from the original AfD back in November, there has been zero attempt to address the concerns raised by the deletion rationales and looking back over it, I still do not see how this show meets WP:NTV. None of the references are WP:SIGCOV of the television programme and no new ones were provided.

As there seemed to be a concerning over-appreciation of the sources last time by keep !voters, I have taken the liberty to assess these as below.

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Bungle**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.worldcat.org/title/760226013	User-generated content	Database entry	✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/566273-workouts-keep-fresh-active		News article about a cast member that doesn't discuss the show, except to confirm she is in it	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/709333/drama-serials-fitting-the-bill	Disclaimer at bottom of page notes content is written by a blogger and views not representative of Dawn Media Group	Merely a three-sentence basic synopsis. Even the other shows noted on this page discuss its respective programme more.	✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/article/65715/pakistani-dramas-are-romanticising-rape-and-brothels-but-saying-the-word-talaaq-is-the-real-problem/		A two-sentence passing mention around a wider discussion of rape/divorce	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:STICK. Three AfDs, all by the same nominator, in under five months? Regardless of the merits of the case, my default position is that that's not a healthy level of interest in one particular article. Jclemens (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: With all due respect, we have had only 1 meaningful discussion on this matter in 5 months (the original AfD), and the 2nd AfD, while ill-timed, did not amount to a further discussion which would justify your use of WP:STICK (and you even allude to WP:RENOM in that instance). Evidently I have a view on this article, and there have not been developments or further improvements to change my opinion. When we have a subject matter for which no clear consensus has been determined, it's entirely reasonable to retry in reaching that consensus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be entirely correct, but I worry to see the pattern. RENOM is not mandatory, but a suggested minimum before renomination. Given the non-U.S. nature of the show, I strongly worry about systemic bias and our poor ability to find and use sources in other languages. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While that is a more reasonable position to take than WP:STICK, it amounts to WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST which is also a position that should be avoided. The series didn't have much in the way of longevity, and while episode count is not an outright basis for asserting or discounting notability, it's less likely to be notable than say, a series that had a considerably longer run. I would expect anyone voting to keep to back this up with evidence to counter the nomination. Ultimately, this article should not have been created without sufficient sources offered to demonstrate notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For lack of better sources at this writing (or until they show up), redirect to original station Geo Entertainment or director Angeline Malik per lede. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Lacks sufficient and significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreed with Jclemens here. The references cited are notable newspaper and websites in the country which are independent covering the subject. I see no point in nominating the article again and again when it does have adequate sources which are WP:Reliable and WP: Independent. TheAnasKhan (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have not read a word of my nomination statement. I also see you have created a similar type of article which is already listed at AfD, so i'd question your judgement when it comes to understanding notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Afd is in progress on my article though it is not nominated third time by the same nominator. I'm new here but I know what does Notability means, mere nominations doesn't justify your reason or statements to delete the article. TheAnasKhan (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Delete The only improvement from the previous AfDs is Reception section and addition of 1 ref, references are not establishing notability at all, showing a failure per WP:GNG clear source assessment. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note TheAnasKhan is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the source eval table. Fails GNG and NTV. BEFORE showed normal promo and listings, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 04:38, 2 April 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 00:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TestCrew

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP, sourced primarily to press-releases. KH-1 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 09:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore GNG/NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 12:32, 28 March 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Anton Josef von Sinzendorf

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't see anything other than the briefest biographical details in genealogical lists. To start we need sources to verify the claims before we can even establish if the subject meets the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are available on the German equivalent article. The German version uses general referencing, which is quite normal there, but viewed as unacceptable by many editors here. In any case, it makes it very hard to work out which statements are verified by the (two) sources quoted. Both sources look like directories of nobility, and I personally have no intention of trying to get hold of the Allgemeines Adels-Archiv der Österreichischen Monarchie to rescue a small article about someone whose historical significance may not be outstanding. Elemimele (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the German article please, I cannot find it. CT55555(talk) 14:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
de.wiki. Curbon7 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 12:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a courier at the royal court, and was lord of the Trpísty in Bohemia that appear to meet WP:NPOL as a member of royal parliament during the monarchy period. Taung Tan (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Sinzendorf. Typically courtiers, particularly high-ranking ones like imperial chamberlains, have some mentions in era sources, but to the best of my ability, I was unable to uncover any sources mentioning the subject beyond listings. A redirect to his family makes the most sense, and he is already mentioned at that article. Curbon7 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is coverage in German here 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is literally a genealogical chart. The barest of details. JMWt (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found several mentions of his name in Google Books, but i can't read German. Taung Tan (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nom, I also found mentions -usually one-line references to genealogies. The debate is whether there can in any sense be considered non-trivial and significant as per WP:GNG. I say no. JMWt (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An Imperial chamberlain and counsellor is very likely to be notable, even without much sourcing found on him thus far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- A "courtier, Counsellor and Chamberlain at the Imperial Court in Vienna" ought to be prominent enough to be notable and I would have expected him to have an article in some biographical dictionary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist. Some commenters here are probably right that there SHOULD be sources out there that mention this individual in some detail but, fortunately or unfortunately, an AFD discussion produces pressure to find and cite these references as a rebuttal to a nomination statement which hasn't happened. At this point, you might consider the option of a Redirect that has been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no sources even after a three week deletion procedure. Without applied sources, this might as well be pure fiction, because a reader wouldn't know the difference. The BURDEN remains on those urging keep to actually add RS in order to convince participants. I'm not convinced of presumed notability when the subject's mere existence isn't even verified on the article itself. BusterD (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Checked de.wp article[49], single sources points to the name being listed in a collection of genealogies; see [50]. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. Having a title does not make an individual notable and genealogies do not show notability. // Timothy :: talk // Timothy :: talk 05:13, 2 April 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 00:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Sportsman Series

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

Non-notable racing league with COI edits by CamKOSS2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which fails WP:NCORP as there is a lack of SIGCOV in reliable sources, with only The Hamilton Spectator (already cited in article) providing any depth of coverage. Everything else found was WP:ROUTINE at best. Noithing WP:SUSTAINED either, despite this league existing since 2007. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Motorsport, and Canada. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 25 March 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!} 06:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berita (TV program)

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

Fails notability. None of the references in the article address the subject, or are promotional material, so there is no SIGCOV. References themselves are not IS RS for notability. BEFORE showed promotional material, database listings. // Timothy :: talk 00:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Indonesia. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator has encapsulated the reasons for deletion perfectly. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another article by this editor who has recently created a spate of articles about non-notable subjects. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Straightforward. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is all very well to 'exterminate' such items (as one does with enthusiasm at afds'), the problem is the creating editor has a poor grasp of english and was under the impression that programmes are notable as standalones - any sense of fairplay or genuine interest in the background of the editor or the articles would have traced back to the television station to clarify that the programme or its context are in fact adequately covered in the article about the station, if not the material could be merged back... Notability is in a sense a dead point, the issue is whether the actual broadcasting television station article has enough about the programme. JarrahTree 02:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the suggestion, I believe, of a Merge with a TV station or network as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't accept there is any benefit in a merge/rd or that an WP:ATD is necessary or useful. The nomination sums up the rationale to delete. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 25 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oronde Ash

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:05, 25 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Andrews

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I find lots of passing mentions, but nothing which reflects his career. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The subject is notable, deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and there is no consensus that the article is so hopelessly irreparable that WP:TNT is warranted $Salvio giuliano$ 08:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cumming

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

WP:PROMOTIONAL BLP by a paid editor. Also largely self-sourced, therefore I suggest that WP:TNT is justified here.

The subject likely meets WP:NBIO, therefore draftification might be a suitable alternative to deletion? MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as holder of a named professorship and as a widely-cited academic. Not unduly promotional. See the Google Scholar page at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rH8ShgoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Florida. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take the axe to it: Notable via WP:NPROF as a distinguished prof and on citations. It's not overtly promotional in the sense that it doesn't say his research is "groundbreaking" or words like that, but there is a significant degree of over-coverage, particularly with regards to the lede, which needs to be significantly cut. Curbon7 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: I am not sure if I understand your !vote correctly, are you in favor of keeping or deleting? It seems clear that you are, like me, in favor of cutting down the content substantially, which implies keeping an article on the subject? --hroest 03:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable via WP:NPROF; yes. Curbon7 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per WP:NPROF#1 with 24k citations and an h-index of 79 as well as #5 but there is no need for an extended CV with a list of all books and individual PhD students here; clearly the article needs to be cut down and written in an encyclopedic style. --hroest 16:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes WP:NPROF with flying colors. Nominator cannot be familiar with WP:NPROF. Article is not great, and overly promotional, but that is not an AfD issue. Jeppiz (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jeppiz. Notability is not the basis for this AFD, please see the nomination statement. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle, notability is the basis for every AfD. I did not mean to comment, but as you insist, I feel obliged to recommend you to study WP policies before starting future AfDs. If a subject is notable but the article poor, as is the case here, the correct action is to improve the article, not to nominate it for AfD. Jeppiz (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No deletion argument was put forward by the nominator regarding the article subject's notability. Silver seren^C 03:34, 30 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omari Aldridge

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:05, 25 March 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 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school and conference

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

Has been tagged for a merge since September, but after some discussion over at WP:CBBALL, it seems like it belongs here instead.

WP:CRUFTy list that is largely redundant to NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school. The addition of conference affiliation to that list would make an already busy list cluttered. The information that is presented here is also misleading at best, and inaccurate at worst, due to shifting conference affiliations over the years, and the listing of teams by their current conference. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the schools receiving bids by conference, up.

It is a far more detailed page than the list of schools on the other page and breaks down what conference they're in, how far they advanced and how long it's been since they have made each round. It also lists the upcoming changes to each conference. Fresno St. Alum (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this is an ILIKEIT argument, but as I reader, I always visit this page instead of NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school because this page is a more pleasant reading/browsing experience. You're right that conference affiliations change, so the article is misleading to readers who don't already follow college basketball. But if it's deleted, I'd like to see NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school overhauled to make it less cluttered. 15 columns is too much. Zagalejo (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge There is zero point to having both of these articles, but I would take a look at overhauling whatever remains after this AFD, as I could easily see how readers would prefer the formatting of the former. There's no real point in deleting over redirecting here, at least in my view – there are likely links out there from external sites, and the bids by school article provides largely the same info, so a redirect isn't going to mislead readers. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Questions How much of this content can be independently sourced? Or is it solely based off of the NCAA published record book. I'm wary of WP:NPOV and pushing the NCAA's narrative. Also, how much of the "last appearance" columns can be directly sourced, versus requiring editors to peruse a list to find the last time something happened. If the latter, I think the scale of which it's being done goes beyond WP:CALC and seems WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- These questions would also apply to NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school (and arguably, the situation is more complicated there). I think it should be possible to verify the information team-by-team, with patience. I'm sure the information also exists on individual team pages, although some spot-checking reveals a general lack of citations in those pages, as well. Personally, I wouldn't be so worried about people perusing a list to determine when something last happened. Using prose sources also requires some degree of interpretation and synthesis. Zagalejo (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm wary of presenting reams of stats unexplained (WP:NOTSTATS), and in a format not really presented anywhere else (WP:UNDUE).—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  One option might be to just take NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament all-time team records and add the number of tournament appearances for each school, and redirect the others.—Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there's at least some interest in knowing how far a team has made it through the tournament, and the last time they hit a certain round. Articles like this show that people do want that information. Zagalejo (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People want betting odds too. I'll mull this over and await others' comments. —Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think that all types of lists like this are exactly what Counting and sorting are not original research is supposed to be talking about. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support deleting the page. I originally made the merge request because the NCAA tournament pages suffer from an overload of repeated stats on various pages. This information can be added to the bids page as a new section as long as the information is correct and the original conference. The media rarely attributes appearances to a conference from before a team was part of it Ha2772a (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list is a redundancy of NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school as mentioned by Fuzzy510. In addition, it inflates numbers of schools' current conferences by including all their appearances with disregard to appearances while members of different conferences (i.e. UConn's two appearances as a member of the AAC are included in the Big East's total and excluded from the AAC's). Another thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that the only purpose for which a conference total for bids would be relevant is the shared pool of money conference members receive for fellow members' successes in the tournament in any given year. That does not seem to be a good enough purpose to keep the list, especially since it currently doesn't mention said purpose. Greenday61892 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list is not a redundancy. While sports-reference provides a tally of tournament appearances by conference membership *at that time*, this page lists appearances by current membership, giving a more accurate portrayal of current conferences' historical strength. While it would make sense to merge this page into the "bids by school" page, deleting it completely would be wasting a valuable resource. 131.100.2.215 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school. Shouldn't break external sites that might already link here (page has existed since 2006). Nothing to merge, as there's no convincing arguments to keep the potentially misleading conference content. Cleanup can take place independently at the target page, if some layout features here were better.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school and merge any relevant information there, as appropriate. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school per above. // Timothy :: talk 05:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 02:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkney Lugenbeel

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

Fails WP:BIO as a career army officer who fought in many battles, but did not particularly distinguish himself. All I could find is this rather florid description. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the source mentioned by the nominator, there are several obituaries accessible through Newspapers.com. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC) There's also apparently a biography in Chronicles of Oklahoma, Vol 24 (1946-47), No. 4, pp. 449-459. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Also this. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep numerous passing mentions in books and official records which I believe give a bare pass on WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for reasons already mentioned. Heitman has him leaving the Army as colonel of the 5th Infantry (a rank and position he assumed in 1880), but only mentions brevets from the Mexican-American war. Seems his Civil War service wasn't especially notable. Intothat darkness 15:17, 27 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lee (Oregon missionary)

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

The article was created in 2020 and only has a handful of edits, with the last being in 2021. The subject doesn't seem to warrant their own page after a Google search and the article only contains a single paragraph with no references. -- Zoo (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Oregon. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The article lacks the inline citations it should have, but a brief examination of the sources provided in the bibliography demonstrates significant coverage in two reliable sources. Methodist missionaries were intimately involved in the early settlement of the Oregon Territory (well, the non-Native American settlement) and I can confidently say that we could find even more on Daniel Lee (and Jason Lee) in the Oregon Historical Quarterly and related resources. That said, since the article at present lacks inline citations and the sources are somewhat dated, I'm going with "weak keep". ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in the two reliable sources in the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject qualifies under WP:GNG as notable, via WP:SIGCOV in secondary independent WP:RS. WP:NOTABILITY and GNG are also satisfied in the form of significant coverage demonstrating WP:IMPACT under the relevant guidelines. Since the SIGCOV threshold is met, there can’t be any claim that coverage is WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL, since it is by definition significant and implies WP:IMPACT sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG policy for inclusion. The available sources demonstrate the subject’s notability, effectively removing the WP:NOTABILITY premise as a valid basis for deletion. Deletion could be considered if the subject didn’t meet WP:GNG, WP:RS WP:SIGCOV, or was limited to WP:TRIVIAL/WP:ROUTINE coverage weakening the claim to notability. However, since these conditions are met, the appropriate conclusion is that the subject is notable and indeed warrants a stand alone article under WP:GNG notability guidelines. The case for keeping is significantly strengthened by the fact that the subject meets GNG via significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, thus establishing a claim to notability enhanced by WP:IMPACT. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 15:43, 1 April 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.